HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 47-22Report to Council
Report Number: PLN 47-22
Date: December 5, 2022
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment:
Changes to development review procedures and fees in response to Bill 109, the
More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, and review of the City’s Planning
Application Fees
File: OPA 22-003/P
Recommendations:
1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 22-003/P, initiated by the City of Pickering,
to amend existing policies and introduce new policies related to the review of Planning Act
applications, as set out in Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I to Report PLN 47-22 be approved;
2.That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan, to amend
existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to
the review of Planning Act applications under Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone
Act, 2022, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 47-22, be enacted;
3.That the revised Draft Pre-consultation By-law, as set out in Appendix II to Report
PLN 47-22, be enacted;
4.That, in response to legislated changes arising from the enactment of Bill 109, the More
Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, and to improve cost recovery of the processing of
development applications, an increase to the City Development Department – Planning
Fees be approved, effective January 1, 2023;
5.That an amendment to Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03, the General Municipal Fees and
Charges By-law, as amended, by deleting the pages for City Development Department
–Planning, and substituting the updated pages for City Development Department –
Planning, as set out in Schedule “I” to the Draft By-law provided as Appendix III to
Report PLN 47-22, be approved; and
6.That the revised Draft By-law to amend Schedule “I” to the General Municipal Fees and
Charges By-law 6191/03, as set out in Appendix III to Report PLN 47-22, be enacted.
Executive Summary: On April 14, 2022, Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act,
2022, received Royal Assent. Among other matters, Bill 109 amended the Planning Act to
require municipalities to refund Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval application
fees if no decision is made or no approval is issued within the legislative timelines. Zoning By-law
Amendment Applications are required to have a decision made within 90 days (or 120 days if
concurrent with an official plan amendment) and site plan approval is required within 60 days
or refunds of application fees are mandated. These changes will come into effect on
January 1, 2023 for new applications submitted after that date.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 2
To meet the legislated review timelines and avoid having to pay refunds (that may put the
corporation at financial risk), staff are proposing several changes to the development review
process:
• no longer permit development applications to be submitted concurrently;
• introduce a new “pre-submission” review stage;
• revise the “complete application” requirements for development applications;
• make public engagement, during the “pre-submission” review stage, a requirement for
submitting a complete application;
• prepare a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development
Committee on the same day as the statutory public meeting;
• to address minor issues that may arise during the formal Zoning By-law Amendment
application stage, which cannot be resolved within the legislated timeframes, staff will
recommend Council “refuse the application without prejudice”; and
• permit reconsideration of Zoning By-law Amendment applications that are refused without
prejudice in select circumstances.
An amendment to the policies in the Pickering Official Plan is proposed to revise the City’s
current pre-consultation requirements and introduce the new “pre-submission” review stage
(see Appendices I and II to Report PLN 47-22). The proposed changes will require early
collaboration between applicants, staff and other stakeholders (including the public) to review
key concerns and issues of the proposal, before the submission of a formal application.
The proposed amendment to the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law reflects two
different reviews of the fees. The first is a result of Bill 109. It will identify new charges for the
“pre-submission” stage and shift when fees are paid to more accurately reflect where in the
process the corresponding amount of work is completed. The second, unrelated to Bill 109, is
an increase in fees to ensure that development application fees better reflect the amount of
effort required from City staff (see Appendix III to Report PLN 47-22).
The recommended changes to development review procedures and fees reflect a response to
Bill 109, and an update of the City’s application fees. Recently announced draft changes to the
Planning Act (Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) may require further modifications
in the future. As required, staff may bring additional changes for Council’s consideration
if/when this new legislation is enacted.
Financial Implications: If no changes are made to the City’s development review process,
as outlined in Section 2 of this report, the City is at risk of forfeiting most, or all, of the application
fees collected for Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications. The precise
amount associated with these applications will vary each year, based on the number of
applications received. Using a three-year range, the average amount of fees that could be at
risk is approximately $1,000,000 per year.
The addition of new charges for the “pre-submission” application stage, and proposed increase
in development review fees, will bring many (but not all) of these fees to full cost recovery. This
will provide the City with the ability to continue to perform the required function of development
review and approval, while minimizing reliance on increased tax revenue to meet demand.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 3
1. Background
The Planning Act of Ontario is the provincial legislation that sets out the ground rules
for land use planning in Ontario. Guided by the Planning Act, the City of Pickering
receives, reviews, and approves development applications leading to the construction
of new homes and businesses.
On March 30, 2022, the Province introduced Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone
Act, 2022. Bill 109 amends various statutes, including the Planning Act, for items
related to housing and development. City staff brought forward a report (PLN 22-22) to
the April 25, 2022, Council meeting, summarizing Bill 109 and its potential implications
for the City (see Attachment #1).
During the consultation period, the Province gave Bill 109 Royal Assent on April 14,
2022. Among other matters, Bill 109 amended the Planning Act to require
municipalities to refund Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application fees, if a
decision or approval is not made or issued respectively, within the legislative timelines.
These changes come into effect on January 1, 2023. A summary of the fee refunds is
provided in Figures 1, 2 and 3.
Figure 1: Zoning By-law Amendment refund schedule
Figure 2: Zoning By-law Amendment refund schedule if submitted with an Official Plan
Amendment
Figure 3: Site Plan refund schedule
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 4
Prior to the release of Bill 109, staff were in the midst of a review and update of the
City’s development application fees. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. was
retained to assist staff in the review of these fees (see Planning Application Fee
Review – Update Study, Watson & Associates, Attachment #2,). A discussion of the
findings from Watson & Associates is summarized in Section 2.3.5 of this report.
2. Discussion
2.1 Challenges created by Bill 109
The Province has stated that the intent of the changes made by Bill 109 is to
accelerate development approvals, leading to the faster construction of new homes.
The goal of fast and efficient development approvals is shared by City staff.
In practice, the development review process is designed to be an iterative and
collaborative exchange between the City, developers, and stakeholders. The Planning
Act requires municipalities to be transparent, and to actively engage the public in the
review process. Unfortunately, the changes brought forward by Bill 109 do not take
into account the following items in the development review process:
2.1.1 There is no ability to “stop-the-clock” when an application is circulated to
commenting agencies for review
There are a number of external agencies (Ministry of Transportation, Region of
Durham, Conservation Authorities, etc.) and internal departments involved in the
review of applications. The external agencies that assist with application review rarely
provide their comments within the requested one-month period. Municipalities do not
have the ability to “stop-the-clock” while awaiting comments from external agencies.
This review may include an analysis of complex studies and reports such as
comprehensive traffic impact assessments, functional servicing reports, noise studies,
planning justification reports, heritage impact assessments, and geotechnical reports,
to list a few. Delays in receiving comments from these agencies significantly affect
approval timelines. These delays are beyond the control of the City.
2.1.2 There is no ability to “stop-the-clock” after comments have been provided to the
Applicant, and the City is waiting for the proposal to be revised
Once the review of an application has been completed, there are usually several
modifications that need to be made by the Owner and/or Applicant in order for the
application to align with City policies, guidelines, and regulations. While Applicants are
often highly motivated to provide timely revisions, the City has no control over how
long it takes before the revised submission is received from the Applicant. Depending
on the complexity of the project, the key issues to be resolved, and the availability of
consulting resources, it can take an applicant several months to resubmit application
materials. It is also common for Applicants to provide more than one revision of their
application before City staff are prepared to issue Site Plan Approval or recommend
approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to Council.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 5
2.1.3 Statutory public engagement becomes perfunctory rather than collaborative
For Zoning By-law Amendment applications, municipalities are required to include
public consultation by holding a Statutory Public Meeting. Following the Statutory
Public Meeting, the comments from the public are expected to inform staff’s review
and Council’s decision. Effectively reviewing and addressing public comments can
also contribute to applications exceeding the Planning Act timelines. The requirements
imposed by Bill 109 will now require Council to expedite its decision.
If no changes were made to the City’s practices and procedures for reviewing and
making decisions on planning applications, staff would be required to prepare a report
with a recommendation on the application before the Statutory Public Meeting is held,
and likely without time to receive all City, agency, and public comments. This would
reduce the transparency of the review process, reduce the opportunity to undertake
meaningful engagement with stakeholders and members of the public, and reduce the
ability to provide a comprehensive planning recommendation to Council.
The Bill 109 timelines require the rapid review and consideration of development
applications. These timelines do not consider the fact that Committee and Council
meetings are not typically held in the months of July and August or during election
periods. As required, it may become necessary for special meetings of Council to be
called during the summer to consider applications.
Taking into account the review requirements of all City departments and external
agencies, along with the quality of submissions and the response time from
Applicants, it is staff’s opinion that the prescribed timelines in the Planning Act are not
achievable. Therefore, without any change to our current practices and procedures,
the City is at risk of refunding a significant amount of the application fees that are
collected for Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications. The
City’s average processing timelines over the last few years are as follows:
All Zoning By-law Amendments:
• Required decision timeline: 90 days
• Average decision timeline: 400 days
Residential Site Plans:
• Required decision timeline: 60 days
• Average decision timeline: 500 days
Staff notes that there are various factors that contribute to these long decision
timelines. In many instances, delays are caused by untimely responses from
Applicants and external agencies. There are also procedural matters that artificially
inflate decision timelines. For example, in the past when Site Plan applications were
submitted concurrently with Zoning By-law Amendments, approval of the Site Plan
could not occur before the Zoning had been approved by Council. This has
implications on how project timelines are reported but does not directly impact how
project review occurs.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 6
City staff remain committed to the prompt and efficient review of development
applications to spur economic development and support the creation of more housing.
Unfortunately, the punitive measures created by Bill 109 unfairly penalize municipalities
for delays that are often outside of their control. To best support the continued review
of development applications, and to avoid the financial penalties imposed by Bill 109,
staff are proposing several changes to the development review process.
2.2 Proposed Changes to the Development Review Process
The changes staff are proposing should allow the City to meet the legislated timelines
and avoid the loss of development application revenue, while still ensuring a robust
and thorough evaluation of the application. The goal of these proposed changes is for
the City to:
• continue to diligently review development applications in a timely manner;
• continue to provide appropriate analysis leading to high-quality urban design and
orderly development;
• ensure that development application fees more accurately reflect the City’s cost for
reviewing those applications and are collected at the appropriate time; and
• continue to seek meaningful public participation despite a condensed timeline.
2.2.1 Development Review Process
The development review process currently consists of three general stages:
pre-consultation, application review, and decision (see Figure 4 below). Under the
current process, the majority of time spent reviewing the proposal is during the
application review stage.
Figure 4: Current Development Review Process
Due to the strict timeframes and refund penalties assigned to the application review
stage, staff are proposing to shift the review portion of development proposals from
the application stage to a new “pre-submission” stage (see Figure 5 below). Staff will
continue to provide a prompt and thorough review, but will avoid “starting the clock”
and avoid being at risk for application refunds.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 7
Figure 5: Proposed Development Review Process
The City’s development review process will need to change to be more front-ended,
requiring additional review and effort by all stakeholders prior to the formal submission
of an application. This way, when an application is received, it will only be deemed
complete after the review of the proposal has been completed by City staff and
external agencies and the Proponent has made all necessary revisions.
The following sections will provide a more detailed account of the proposed changes
to each stage of the development review process. An illustrated summary of the
development review stages is provided in Attachments #3 and #4 to this report.
2.2.2 Stage 1A – Pre-Consultation Stage
The purpose of the pre-consultation stage is to review a development concept, confirm
the appropriate planning and agency approvals that are needed, and provide a list of
required materials that must be submitted as part of a complete application. Pre-
consultation meetings are permitted by the Planning Act, but are not part of the
legislated application review process, and therefore are not subject to the timeline
refunds prescribed by Bill 109.
2.2.3 Stage 1B – The Pre-Submission Stage
Following a pre-consultation meeting, Proponents will submit all required materials for
review by staff and external agencies. The technical review of the proposal will occur
during the pre-submission stage. During the pre-submission stage, “the clock” is not
running.
At the pre-submission stage, staff will circulate the development reports and drawings
to all agencies and departments for technical review. A full review of all reports and
studies will be completed to confirm accuracy and conformity with all requirements
and standards. More detailed information, such as peer reviews, may also be required
at this stage. The pre-submission stage will be an integrative process, allowing City
Departments and external agencies the appropriate time to review complex studies
and drawings, and allow the Proponent to address key technical issues prior to the
submission of an application. This stage also requires consultation and engagement
with the public. It is important to note that the prescribed timelines imposed by Bill 109
do not apply during the pre-submission review.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 8
2.2.3.1 Public Information Centre (Open House)
The Planning Act requires that a Statutory Public Meeting be held before Council
makes a decision on a variety of development applications, including Zoning By-law
Amendments, but is not required for Site Plan Approvals. This allows the public to
provide comments for Council to consider as part of their decision. In addition to the
Statutory Public Meeting, it is not uncommon for a voluntary Public Information Centre
(open house) to be held earlier in the process. These events are less formal and
provide the public with the opportunity to directly engage with the Applicant, their
consultants, and City staff.
To meet the Planning Act timelines, all Applicants for Zoning By-law Amendment will
now be required to host an open house prior to the submission of a formal application.
One benefit to this early engagement is the identification of community concerns at the
beginning of the process possibly leading to modifications of a proposal before it is
formally submitted. For example, the Planning Rationale Report, traffic reports, and
other supporting documents prepared by the Proponent will now be informed by public
comments rather than exclusively relying on technical analysis that may not fully take
into account the local context. Staff will be developing a set of procedures for
Proponents to follow that outlines the requirements for open house events, which will
include matters such as the type of venue/forum, how to give notice, how to record
feedback, etc.
In addition to requiring the applicant to host an open house meeting, City staff will
ensure the information and materials submitted at the pre-submission stage are
uploaded to the City’s website, allowing the public to review and offer comments on
the proposal.
2.2.4 Stage 2 – Complete Application Submission
Under the Planning Act, certain information or material is required to be provided as
part of a complete application. The purpose of complete application requirements is to
ensure that all the relevant and required information is available, at the time of formal
submission, for staff to either issue an approval or provide a recommendation to
Council. The complete application requirements are intended to make the review of an
application faster and more efficient.
To improve the review process, and manage the new legislated review timelines, staff
propose to strengthen and expand the complete application requirements for planning
applications. The Planning Act allows municipalities to request information or material
if their Official Plan contains provisions relating to those requirements. In order to
update the list of items that the City may request during a pre-consultation meeting, an
amendment to the City’s Official Plan is required. The proposed amendments to the
relevant policies in the Official Plan are contained in Appendix I.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 9
2.2.4.1 The Statutory Public Meeting
The Planning Act outlines the required steps involved in reviewing an application.
Certain applications, such as Zoning By-law Amendments, require that municipalities
consult with the public at a Statutory Public Meeting (see Attachment #4). Once an
application is received and deemed complete, a municipality will schedule a Statutory
Public Meeting to be held at a Planning & Development Committee (Committee)
meeting.
Currently, an information report is provided to the Committee outlining the major
elements of the development application, summarizing relevant land use policies and
identifying key concerns to be addressed. After the first Committee meeting, staff
continue to review the application and incorporate comments received from Council,
the public, and external agencies. Once all information has been received and
reviewed, a recommendation report is presented at a subsequent Committee meeting.
It is at this meeting that Committee is requested to make a decision on the application,
that is ratified at a subsequent Council meeting.
As part of the revised strategy to meet the Planning Act timeline, City Development
staff will no longer prepare an information report and host a Statutory Public Meeting
on a separate evening, in advance of the Planning & Development Committee
considering a recommendation report. The Committee will now have to make a
decision on planning applications on the same night the Statutory Public Meeting is
held. This reduces the ability for public comments, received in advance of the
Statutory Public Meeting, to be incorporated into Committee’s decision. The public
engagement, that is currently received at the Statutory Public Meeting stage, will now
be captured earlier in the process, and in a different form, through the newly required
Public Information Centre described in Section 2.2.3.1 of this report. The Public
Information Centre will occur prior to the submission of the application.
Bringing forward a recommendation report at the Statutory Public Meeting may require
certain procedural changes to the format of that event that will be formulated in
consultation with the City Clerk.
2.2.5 Proposed Transitional Provisions
To assist the Proponents with implementing the revised development review process,
the following transitional provisions are being proposed:
2.2.5.1 New Pre-consultation
All applicants of future development proposals will be informed of the new
development review process, and be provided with directions on how to proceed to a
complete application.
2.2.5.2 Completed Pre-consultation, but no Application
Where complete application requirements have already been determined through a
formal pre-consultation meeting prior to January 1, 2023, City staff will either:
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 10
a. amend the formal pre-consultation requirements; or
b. require a new pre-consultation meeting.
2.2.5.3 Existing Application, but no Statutory Public Meeting
These applications will follow the new development review process. An Open House
will be held to provide information and gather public input. A subsequent Statutory
Public Meeting will be held at the same time that a recommendation report is
presented to Committee.
2.2.5.4 Existing Application and Statutory Public Meeting already held
Since the statutory requirements of the Planning Act have already been met, a
recommendation report will be presented to the Committee at the first opportunity.
2.2.6 Concurrent vs. Sequential Application Review
Often development projects require more than one development approval (i.e., Official
Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and/or Site Plan applications). Currently,
the City permits multiple applications to be submitted at the same time to benefit from
the efficiency of circulating all materials once to external agencies and holding one
joint Statutory Public Meeting. To respond to the strict requirements of Bill 109, certain
applications will no longer be considered concurrently. Instead, Applicants will need to
submit each application sequentially.
For example, a Proponent requiring both a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Site Plan
Approval will have to submit a Zoning By-law Amendment application first. Once the
Zoning By-law Amendment has been approved and is in full force and effect, the
Proponent may then submit a Site Plan Approval application. Staff regret that this will
likely result in a lengthening of overall approval timelines for some projects. However,
this is one of the unintended consequences of the changes brought forward by Bill 109.
Reviewing applications sequentially will ensure that the City is not penalized with any
refunds to site plan applications, while still finalizing prerequisite applications.
2.2.7 Application Denial and Re-Application
Despite the benefits of a revised development review process, the City may still need
to deny an application if all information is not provided within the prescribed timeline to
avoid paying application fee refunds. In circumstances where denials are issued to
“stop-the-clock”, Applicants may be able to submit their applications for reconsideration
if the outstanding matters:
• do not change the nature of the proposal;
• are minor and technical in nature and are not expected to result in fundamental
changes to the layout and design of the proposal;
• do not involve re-engagement with the public; and
• do not require recirculation of the application to external agencies.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 11
The decision on whether to accept an application for reconsideration will be at the
discretion of the Director, City Development & CBO. A fee for the reconsideration of
an application will be required.
2.2.8 Changes to the review of all development applications
With minor differences, all development applications follow the same general pattern
of development review. The recent changes to the Planning Act from Bill 109 only
create potential refund scenarios for Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan
applications. The changes to the development review process listed in this report are
specifically needed for those two application types. However, there would be increased
clarity for the public, the development industry, and Council if all development
applications followed the same review and approval process. Therefore, staff propose
to apply the new development review process to all applicable Planning applications.
2.3 Proposed Changes to the Development Review Fees
In conjunction with the revised development review process that has been outlined in
this report, staff are proposing to shift the development review fees to the appropriate
stage of review where the corresponding amount of work is conducted. This will
involve applying a fee at both the pre-submission stage, as well as a fee at the
application stage.
Prior to the introduction of Bill 109, the City retained Watson & Associates Economists
Ltd. (Watson) to review the City’s current development application fees. The rationale
for the proposed fee changes is contained in Attachment #2 and is further discussed
in Section 2.3.5 of this report.
2.3.1 Stage 1A – Pre-consultation
Currently, fees are collected by the City to review and comment on preliminary
development concepts at the pre-consultation meeting. This fee represents only a small
fraction of the staff time required to prepare and host this meeting. It is recommended
that the current pre-consultation fee be maintained for the analysis of simple proposals
(Pre-consultation Meeting Simple) and a new fee be created for the analysis of complex
proposals (Pre-consultation Meeting Complex). It is intended that this new fee structure
better reflect the amount of work completed by staff for this meeting.
2.3.2 Stage 1B – Pre-submission
Under the new development review process, staff will spend a greater amount of time
reviewing the development materials prior to the submission of the formal application.
Therefore, review fees will be revised to reflect staff’s effort during each stage of
review. A majority of the review fees will be collected at the new “pre-submission”
stage, where staff will spend the largest portion of their time in the review and analysis
of a proposal. The remaining part of the review fee will be collected at the submission
of the complete application. Fees collected at the pre-submission stage are not
subject to any refund requirements.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 12
The review of development proposals is a collaborative process that typically involves
more than one submission by the Proponent to ensure that their proposal conforms
with all policies, standards, and regulations of the City and the relevant commenting
agencies. The pre-submission process presumes the original submission and two
subsequent submissions by the Proponent. Each submission is thoroughly reviewed
by staff and relevant agencies, and a list of missing or outstanding items is provided to
the Proponent. The pre-submission fee is intended to cover the cost of the original
submission and two resubmissions. In order to reflect the ongoing work required by
staff, the fourth submission, and every submission thereafter, will be subject to a
recirculation fee (see Table 1 below).
Table 1: When Pre-submission and Recirculation Fees Apply
Pre-submission Fee Recirculation Fee
Original submission N/A
Submission Two N/A N/A
Submission Three N/A N/A
Submission Four, or more N/A
2.3.4 Stage 2 – Application
After the pre-submission review has been completed, Proponents may then submit
their complete application. An application review fee is payable at the time of
application submission. This is when the legislated timelines in the Planning Act begin.
If Council or staff are unable to reach a decision or provide approval within the
legislated timeline, this is the fee that would be subject to any possible refund.
2.3.5 Overall Increase in Application Fees
There is a general principle in Municipal planning and finance that development
application fees should recover the City’s cost for reviewing those applications. The
intent is to avoid having the existing tax base (residents and business owners)
subsidize the costs to the City incurred from new development. Excluding City-initiated
applications, Minor Variance, and Land Division applications, which are not intended
to achieve cost recovery, the City’s current application fees only recover 78 percent of
the costs of staff’s review of development application files.
Watson was retained by the City to complete a comprehensive update to the
development approval application process (D.A.A.P) fee reviews. One of the
objectives of Watson’s review was to determine the fee increases necessary to
achieve full cost recovery.
The recommended fee increases included in Appendix III of this report will move the
City’s fees for reviewing Planning Act applications closer to full cost recovery.
Excluding Minor Variance, Land Division, and City-initiated applications, cost recovery
performance will increase from 78 percent to almost 95 percent. For Official Plan
Amendments, the move to full cost recovery was considered too great to be
implemented through a one-time increase. Therefore, a more moderate fee increase is
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 13
recommended at this time. Similarly, staff recommend not recovering the full cost for
Minister Zoning Order Amendments, as these fees may be overly burdensome on
residents that live in areas under these regulations. Details of the proposed fee
increases are contained in Watson’s Planning Application Fee Review – Update
Study, contained in Attachment #2 to this report, and summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Current and Proposed Cost Recovery by Application Type
Application Type Current Cost Recovery Proposed Cost Recovery
Subdivision 53% 100%
Condominium 82% 100%
Official Plan 37% 69%
Zoning By-Law Amendment 89% 100%
Site Plan 98% 100%
Minor Variance and Land
Division
11% 15%
City Initiated Applications 0% 0%
These fee increases are necessary if the City wants to ensure that the application and
review fees better reflect the City’s costs for reviewing development applications. The
alternative will be to shift a greater portion of the cost for reviewing development
applications onto Municipal tax assessment revenue.
3. Notice of Proposed Official Plan Amendment 46
In accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, a notice of the Statutory
Public Meeting for proposed Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan was
provided in the Pickering News Advertiser.
Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted on the City’s website and a
separate notice was forwarded to the Building Industry and Land Development
Association (BILD) and members of the local development industry.
As of the date of this report, staff had received three public inquiries seeking clarity on
the proposed amendment, or access to the background report, but no written or verbal
comments have been received from the public.
4. Future Evaluation and Modification
The proposed changes to the City’s development review process are intended to
support the efficient review of development applications in light of recent changes to
the Planning Act. Staff will track the result of the new processes and, as required,
make necessary revisions to ensure that the intended outcomes are being achieved.
Additional changes proposed by the Province under Bill 23 are still being evaluated
and may also necessitate further modifications in the future. A summary of the changes
from Bill 23 is contained in a separate report. It is recommended that a Council
education session be held in the future to review all of the changes proposed to City
processes as a consequence of current and forthcoming changes to the Planning Act.
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 14
5. Conclusion
Staff will continue to focus resources on effectively reviewing development proposals,
while also meeting application timelines. A number of policy, procedure, and fee
changes are needed in order for the City to avoid the refund requirements created by
Bill 109:
• no longer permit development applications to be submitted concurrently;
• introduce a new “pre-submission” review stage;
• revise the “complete application” requirements for development applications;
• make public engagement a requirement for submitting a complete application;
• provide recommendation reports for consideration by the Planning & Development
Committee on the same day as the statutory public meeting;
• recommend Council “refuse an application without prejudice”; to address minor
issues that may arise during the formal Zoning By-law Amendment application
stage, which cannot be resolved within the legislated timeframes; and
• permit reconsideration of Zoning By-law Amendments in select circumstances.
In addition to the procedural changes that will be instituted by staff, it is recommended
that Council approve the corresponding changes.
Staff recommends:
(a) That Council approve Recommended Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official
Plan by passing the by-law to adopt Amendment 46, as set out in Appendix I to
Report PLN 47-22;
(b) That Council approve an amendment to By-law 6942/09, Pre-consultation
By-law; and
(c) That Council approve an amendment to By-law 7918/22, General Municipal Fee
and Charges By-law.
Appendices
Appendix I Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan
Appendix II Draft By-law to Amend By-law 6942/09, Pre-consultation By-law
Appendix III Draft By-law to Amend By-law 7918/22, General Municipal Fees
Attachments
1. Report PLN 22-22, Comments on proposed Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone
2. Planning Application Fee Review – Update Study, Watson & Associates
3. Current and Proposed Site Plan Approval process
4. Current and Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment process
PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022
Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 15
Prepared By:
Original Signed By
Paul Wirch, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Policy
Original Signed By
Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Policy & Geomatics
Original Signed By
Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
& Urban Design
Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Original Signed By
Kyle Bentley, P. Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
PW :ld
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix I to
Report No. PLN 47-22
Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 46
to the City of Pickering Official Plan
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. 7972/22
Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 46 to the Official Plan for
the City of Pickering (OPA 22-003/P)
Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the
Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the
Official Plan for the City of Pickering;
Whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area
municipal official plan amendments from its approval;
Whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the
Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval;
Whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 46 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is
exempt from Regional approval;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1. That Amendment 46 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted;
2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional
Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal
Official Plans and Amendments;
3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof.
By-law passed this 5th day of December, 2022.
________________________________
Kevin Ashe, Mayor
________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
Exhibit “A” to By-law 7972/22
Amendment 46
to the City of Pickering Official Plan
Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan
Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to change existing policies for complete
application requirements, pre-consultation, and peer review. The Amendment will
also add new policies for pre-submission review.
These new and revised policies will align the Pickering Official Plan with recent
changes to the Planning Act (Bill 109) for the development review process.
Location: This amendment applies to all lands within the City of Pickering.
Basis: Through Bill 109, the Planning Act was amended to create graduated refunds for
Zoning By-law Amendments decisions and Site Plan approvals that are not
completed within the timelines prescribed by the Planning Act. In order to avoid
paying refunds, revisions are needed to the manner in which the City of Pickering
reviews and processes development applications. The proposed changes
necessitate amendments to the Pickering Official Plan to create new review
procedures and update the requirements of a complete application.
Actual The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by:
Amendment:
(New text is shown as underlined text, deleted text is shown as strikeout text, and retained text
is shown as unchanged text.)
1. Revising and renumbering, and updating all cross-references to City Policy 16.2,
Pre-submission Consultation, in Chapter 16 – Development Review, so that it reads as
follows:
City Policy
Pre-submissionconsultation
16.2A City Council shall require applicants to consult with the municipality
Municipality prior to submitting an application for an official plan amendment,
zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium
or site plan approval. The A pre-submission consultation meeting will be held
with the applicant, City staff and any other government agency or public
authority that the City determines appropriate. At the pre-submission
consultation meeting:…
2. Adding a new City Policy 16.2B, Pre-submission Review, in Chapter 16 – Development
Review, as follows:
“City Policy
Pre-submission Review
16.2B City Council shall require that all materials and fees listed at the pre-
consultation meeting be submitted to the City for review by City staff.
Except for matters that are the subject of an amendment application,
submission materials must conform with all policies, guidelines, and
regulations stipulated by the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, the
Province of Ontario, and all relevant commenting agencies. The submission
Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2
materials must also provide the rationale for all matters for which an
amendment is being sought. This includes the completion and submission
of any peer review of any materials that may be required.
Once the City, and all commenting agencies, are satisfied that the
submitted materials conform with the requirements listed at the pre-
consultation meeting, the Proponent may submit the application.”
3. Revising City Policy 16.3, Complete Application, in Chapter 16 – Development Review,
so that it reads as follows:
16.3 City Council shall not accept an application for an official plan amendment,
zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium,
or site plan approval until the following has been submitted to the City:
(a) a complete application form, including an acknowledgement by the
applicant of the obligation to pay required peer review costs, as
referred to in Section 16.4;
(b) any information or materials prescribed by statute and regulation;
(c) a record of pre-submission consultation;
(d) the prescribed application fee(s);
(e) payment, or proof of payment of all application review fees and any
other fees charged by commenting agencies;
(f) confirmation from internal departments and external agencies that
the submitted studies and reports meet approved terms of
reference and have addressed all technical comments;
(f) (g) all required studies set out in Section 16.5A for an official plan
amendment, zoning by‑law amendment, draft plan of subdivision and
draft plan of condominium application; and
(h) all required studies set out in Section 16.5B for a site plan application.
4. Revising City Policy 16.4, Peer Review at Applicant’s Expense, in Chapter 16 –
Development Review, so that it reads as follows:
16.4 City Council shall require all of the matters set out in Sections 16.3, 16.5A,
and/or 16.5B to be completed to the satisfaction of the City respecting the
scope and complexity appropriate to the application prior to the City deeming
the application complete. Once an application is deemed complete, tThe
City may retain a qualified consultant to conduct a peer review of any of the
studies required in Sections 16.5A and/or 16.5B at the applicant’s expense as
acknowledged on the application form and as provided for in Section 16.3 (a).
All peer reviews must be completed before the study can be deemed to be
in conformity with the requirements listed at the pre-consultation
meeting.
Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 3
5. Revising City Policy 16.5A, Required Studies for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning
By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium
Approval, in Chapter 16 – Development Review, so that it reads as follows:
City Policy
Required StudiesRequirements for an Official Plan Amendment,
Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision,
and Draft Plan of Condominium Approval
16.5A City Council shall require the following materials and studies prepared by
qualified experts, as scoped or expanded as a result of the pre-submission
consultation required by Section 16.2A, to be submitted for review to ensure
conformity with the requirements listed at the pre-consultation meeting at
the time of application for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law
amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of condominium
approval:
(i) a planning rationale report which considers the overall benefit to the
community and evaluates the proposal against the relevant goals,
objectives, policies and general purpose and intent of this Plan, the
Regional Official Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan and
Provincial policy, where applicable;
(ii) a transportation study;
…
(xxxvii) an Information and Communication Technologies Implementation
Plan, as referred to in Section 7.12 (b); and
(xxxviii) a salt management plan as referred to in Sections 10.13 (g), and
10.27 (c).;
(xxxix) a public engagement report from a public engagement event
that has been held within six months prior to the submission of
the application. The public engagement report must
demonstrate that the event followed the City’s notification and
meeting format requirements;
(xl) confirmation that Indigenous consultation has been held in
accordance with the City’s requirements;
(xli) confirmation of parkland requirements;
(xlii) a record of site condition; and
(xliii) an affordable housing brief.
6. Revising City Policy 16.5B, Required Studies for Site Plan Approval, in Chapter 16 –
Development Review, so that it reads as follows:
City Policy
Required StudiesRequirements for Site Plan Approval
Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 4
16.5B City Council shall require the following materials and studies prepared by
qualified experts, as scoped or expanded as a result of the pre-submission
consultation provided for by Section 16.2A, to be submitted at the time of
application for site plan approval:
(i) a transportation study;
…
(xxviii) a water balance study, as referred to in Section 10.29 (e), 10.29 (f),
10.29 (g), 10.29 (h), and 10.29 (k); and
(xxix) a salt management plan as referred to in Sections 10.13 (g), and
10.27 (c).;
(xxx) confirmation of parkland requirements;
(xxxi) a record of site condition;
(xxxii) a zoning certificate;
(xxxiii) approved cost estimates for all off-site and landscaping works;
and
(xxxiv) an affordable housing brief.
7. Revising City Policy 16.8, Environmental Reports Required, in Chapter 16 –
Development Review, so that it reads as follows:
16.8 City Council:
(a) as determined through a pre-submission consultation in Section 16.2A,
require the submission and approval of an Environmental Report as part
of the consideration of a development application or a public infrastructure
project for major development within 120 metres of the Natural Heritage
System or within the minimum area of influence prescribed in Table 18 of
this Plan; and
(b) despite Section 16.8(a), may, through the pre-submission consultation in
Section 16.2A, require the submission and approval of an Environmental
Report as part of its consideration of any other development application or
public infrastructure project.
Appendix II to
Report No. PLN 47-22
Draft By-law to Amend By-law 6942/09
Pre-consultation By-law
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. 7973/22
Being a by-law to require consultation with the City prior to
submission of applications for official plan amendments, zoning
by-law amendments, site plans, plans of subdivision and plans
of condominium
Whereas the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P13 authorizes municipalities to pass by-laws to
require land use planning applicants to consult with the municipality before submitting
applications for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plans, plans of
subdivision and plans of condominium;
Whereas Council wishes to have applicants discuss planning proposals with City staff before
the applications are submitted to the City, to ensure that the appropriate studies and other
requirements are completed to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the submission of a
complete application;
And whereas Council wishes to have City staff complete a preliminary review of all proposals,
at the pre-submission stage, to ensure that all materials conform with the requirements of the
pre-consultation, have been revised in accordance with City and agency comments, and all
major issues have been resolved to the City’s satisfaction, before the application is submitted;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1. Proponents shall attend a pre-consultation meeting with relevant City staff prior to
submitting requests to amend the City's Official Plan or zoning by-laws, and prior to
submitting applications for site plan, plan of subdivision or plan of condominium approval.
2. After the pre-consultation meeting, Proponents shall submit their development
proposals to the City for review at the pre-submission stage. The pre-submission stage
will be an integrative process allowing City departments and external agencies the
appropriate time to review studies and drawings, and allow the Proponent to address
key technical issues prior to the submission of an application.
3. At the conclusion of the pre-submission stage, all planning applications submitted to the
City must conform with the requirements of the pre-consultation meeting to be considered
a complete application under the Planning Act.
4. Planning applications submitted to the City prior to a pre-consultation meeting or prior to
the pre-submission stage will not be accepted as complete applications under the
Planning Act.
5. If more than one application is required for planning approval in support of a single
development proposal, a single pre-consultation meeting with City staff can satisfy the
requirement to consult. Despite the joint pre-consultation meeting, and following the
conclusion of the pre-submission stage, development applications must be submitted
consecutively and not concurrently.
By-law No. 7973/22 Page 2
6.Following the required pre-consultation meeting, if the proposal which was the subject
of the pre-consultation meeting has not been submitted for a pre-submission review
within the time-frame determined by the Director of City Development, the Proponent
may be required to attend a new pre-consultation meeting.
7.Transition
By-law 6942/09 shall be repealed upon this By-law coming into effect.
8.Effective date
This By-law shall come into full force and effect on the day of its passing.
By-law passed this 5th day of December, 2022.
________________________________
Kevin Ashe, Mayor
________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
Appendix III to
Report No. PLN 47-22
Draft By-law to Amend By-law 7918/22
General Municipal Fees
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. 7974/22
Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 6191/03 to confirm
General Municipal Fees
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law 6191/03, as
amended, on October 14, 2003 to confirm general municipal fees.
Whereas Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03 was updated and replaced under By-law, 6338/04,
By-law 6519/05, By-law 6652/06, By-law 6677/06, By-law 6748/07 By-law 6857/08, By-law
6951/09, By-law 7032/10, By-law 7119/11, By-law 7194/12, By-law 7268/13, By-law 7339/14,
By-law 7411/15, By-law 7478/16, By-law 7542/17, By-law 7605/18; By-law 7679/19; By-law
7740/20, By-law 7823/21 and 7918/22;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1. Schedule “I” to By-law Number 6191/03, as amended, is hereby deleted and Schedule “I”
attached hereto is substituted therefore.
By-law passed this 5th day of December, 2022.
________________________________
Kevin Ashe, Mayor
________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
Schedule “I” to
By-law 7974/22
Updated Application Fees for
City Development – Planning
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2022 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2023 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
These fees are imposed under the authority of the Planning Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13
Planning Documents
Pickering Official Plan $225.00 $225.00 Y No Increase
Official Plan Compendium $50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
Seaton Sustainable Placemaking
Guidelines 1
$50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
City Centre Urban Design Guidelines $50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
Kingston Mixed Corridor & Brock Mixed
Node Design Guidelines
N/A $50.00 Y January 1, 2023
Development Guidelines $5.00-$20.00 $5.00-$20.00 Y No Increase
Special Studies $10.00-$20.00 $10.00-$20.00 Y No Increase
Zoning By-laws
3036 - Set 13 Volume $100.00 $100.00 Y No Increase
3036 - By Volume $10.00 $10.00 Y No Increase
2511, 2520, 3037, 7364/14 (Seaton),
7553/17 (City Centre)
$40.00 $40.00 Y No Increase
20 Year Household & Population $30.00 $30.00 Y No Increase
Mapping $5.00-$25.00 $5.00-$25.00 Y No Increase
Address Booklet $25.00-$50.00 $25.00-$50.00 Y No Increase
Fiche Prints Price Varies Price Varies Y No Increase
Special Mapping Requests $54.15/hr $54.15/hr Y No Increase
Photocopies - 6 or more pages $0.50/ea $0.50/ea Y No Increase
CD Copies of Documents $10.00/document $10.00/document Y No Increase
Telecommunications Tower Approval $8,910.00 $9,355.00 N January 1, 2023
Minor Variance
Applications to recognize an "as built
condition"
Double the regular fee Double the regular fee N No Increase
Accessory buildings, structures, decks,
platforms & driveway widening
$685.00 $820.00 N January 1, 2023
Residential Minor (a lot for a detached
dwelling unit, semi-detached dwelling unit
and/or freehold townhouse dwelling unit)
Single Variance $920.00 $1,100.00 N January 1, 2023
Multiple Variances $1,155.00 $1,390.00 N January 1, 2023
Residential Major (all other residential and
mixed use buildings)
Single Variance $2,000.00 $2,400.00 N January 1, 2023
Multiple Variances $2,255.00 $2,710.00 N January 1, 2023
Institutional, Commercial & Industrial
Single Variance $2,530.00 $3,040.00 N January 1, 2023
Multiple Variances $2,960.00 $3,550.00 N January 1, 2023
Tabling Fee & Recirculation (applicant
initiated)
$630.00 $760.00 N January 1, 2023
Special Meeting $4,025.00 $4,830.00 N January 1, 2023
Authorization to Apply for Variance Under
Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act
$5,755.00 $6,906.00 N January 1, 2023
Application for Pre-Consultation $350.00 N/A N January 1, 2023
Simple2 $350.00 N January 1, 2023
Complex $1,200.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law Amendment -
Pre-submission Review
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2022 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2023 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Zoning By-law Amendment -Major 3 - Base
Fee
$9,590.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $260.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 75 units (26-100) $190.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 100 Units (101-200) $160.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $65.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha of
Land Area 4
$910.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Development Block Ha
(or part thereof) of Land Area 5
$330.00 N January 1, 2023
6Zoning By-law Amendment -Minor $6,690.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law - Recirculation 7 $2,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine
or Greenbelt
$1,320.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding $1,980.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding
(Complex/Block Plan Required)
$9,590.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law - Extension of Temporary
Use By-law
$9,590.00 N January 1, 2023
Authorization to Apply for Variance Under
Section 34 (10.0.0.2) of the Planning Act
$6,906.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law Amendment -
Application
Zoning By-law Amendment -Major 3 - Base
Fee
$17,700.00 $10,100.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $450.00 $240.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 75 units (26-100) $335.00 $180.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 100 Units (101-200) $275.00 $145.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $110.00 $60.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha of
Land Area 4
$910.00 $485.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Development Block Ha
(or part thereof) of Land Area) 5
$575.00 $305.00 N January 1, 2023
6Zoning By-law Amendment -Minor $12,650.00 $6,500.00 N January 1, 2023
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine
or Greenbelt
$2,300.00 $1,250.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding $3,450.00 $1,830.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding
(Complex/Block Plan Required)
$4,375.00 $10,100.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law - Extension of Temporary
Use By-law
$17,710.00 $10,100.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning By-law - Reconsideration 8 $5,230.00 N January 1, 2023
Minister Zoning Order
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Major
9
$2,875.00 $3,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Minor
10
$2,300.00 $2,500.00 N January 1, 2023
Official Plan Amendment -
Pre-submission Review
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Major
11
$45,500.00 N January 1, 2023
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Minor
12
$21,650.00 N January 1, 2023
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2022 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2023 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Pickering Official Plan Amendment -
Recirculation 7
$2,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine
or Greenbelt
$3,300.00 N January 1, 2023
Official Plan Amendment -
Application
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Major
11
$48,000.00 $43,500.00 N January 1, 2023
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Minor
12
$23,000.00 $20,750.00 N January 1, 2023
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine
or Greenbelt
$2,300.00 $3,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Regional Official Plan - Amendment (not
part of a Pickering OPA)
$13,800.00 $37,100.00 N January 1, 2023
Neighbourhood Development Guideline
Amendment 13
$1,600.00 $4,300.00 N January 1, 2023
Land Division
Comments $1,725.00 $2,600.00 N January 1, 2023
Clearance of Conditions $865.00 $1,300.00 N January 1, 2023
Council authorization to proceed by land
division instead of draft plan of subdivision
14
$5,750.00 $8,670.00 N January 1, 2023
Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Conveyance
For the creation of up to 3 additional lots
(price per lot created)
$6,610.00 $6,940.00 N January 1, 2023
For the creation of more than 3
additional lots
5% of the value of the
land
See Parkland By-law N January 1, 2023
Draft Plan of Subdivision -
Pre-submission Review
Base Fee $32,800.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $470.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 75 units (26-100) $380.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 100 Units (101-200) $300.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $190.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha
(or part thereof) of Land Area 4
$150.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Development Block
Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area 5
$95.00 N January 1, 2023
Recirculation 7 $2,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine
or Greenbelt
$1,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Applicant-Initiated Major Revisions (prior to
Draft Plan Approval)
$22,200.00 N January 1, 2023
Revisions to Draft Approved Plan -
(redline revisions) - Pre-submission Review
Base Fee $13,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Additional Residential
Units
First 25 units (1-25) $470.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 75 units (26-100) $380.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 100 Units (101-200) $300.00 N January 1, 2023
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2022 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2023 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $190.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha (or
part thereof) of Land Area
$150.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Development Block Ha
(or part thereof) of Land Area
$95.00 N January 1, 2023
Draft Plan of Subdivision -
Application
Base Fee $34,650.00 $34,600.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $560.00 $575.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 75 units (26-100) $450.00 $465.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 100 Units (101-200) $355.00 $365.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $225.00 $230.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha
(or part thereof) of Land Area 4
$180.00 $185.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Development Block
Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area 5
$110.00 $115.00 N January 1, 2023
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine
or Greenbelt
$2,300.00 $2,500.00 N January 1, 2023
Revisions to Draft Approved Plan -
(redline revisions) - Application
Base Fee $13,860.00 $13,600.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Additional Residential
Units
First 25 units (1-25) $560.00 $575.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 75 units (26-100) $460.00 $465.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 100 Units (101-200) $335.00 $365.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $225.00 $230.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha (or
part thereof) of Land Area
$180.00 $185.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Development Block Ha
(or part thereof) of Land Area
$110.00 $115.00 N January 1, 2023
Release of Draft Plan of
Subdivision/Clearance Fee
$1,300.00 $2,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Plan of Condominium -
Pre-submission Review
Draft Plan of Condominium $5,400.00 N January 1, 2023
Common Element Condominium $7,900.00 N January 1, 2023
Recirculation 7 $2,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Condominium Conversion $7,900.00 N January 1, 2023
Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan -
(redline revisions)
$3,100.00 N January 1, 2023
Plan of Condominium -
Application
Draft Plan of Condominium $16,720.00 $13,600.00 N January 1, 2023
Common Element Condominium $23,000.00 $19,300.00 N January 1, 2023
Condominium Conversion $23,000.00 $19,300.00 N January 1, 2023
Release of Draft Plan of
Condominium/Clearance Fee
$1,300.00 $2,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Site Plan - Pre-submission Review
Residential See "All Uses Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
N January 1, 2023
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2022 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2023 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Commercial See "All Uses Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
N January 1, 2023
Industrial See "All Uses Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
N January 1, 2023
All Uses (Residential, Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use) - Base Fee
$5,300.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $370.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 75 units (26-100) $300.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 100 Units (101-200) $225.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $55.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per 2,000 m2 (or part
thereof) of Non-Residential GFA
$4,405.00 N January 1, 2023
Recirculation 7 $2,000.00 N January 1, 2023
Applicant Initiated Revision Base Fee N January 1, 2023
Site Plan - Application Review
Residential See "All Uses
Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
See "All Uses Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
N January 1, 2023
Commercial See "All Uses
Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
See "All Uses Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
N January 1, 2023
Industrial See "All Uses
Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
See "All Uses Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
N January 1, 2023
All Uses (Residential, Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use) - Base Fee
$9,975.00 $2,900.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $560.00 $145.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 75 units (26-100) $450.00 $115.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 100 Units (101-200) $335.00 $85.00 N January 1, 2023
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $85.00 $20.00 N January 1, 2023
Plus Fee per 2,000 m2 (or part
thereof) of Non-Residential GFA
$6,630.00 $1,695.00 N January 1, 2023
Site Plan Agreement and Clearance of
Conditions
N/A $7,300.00 N January 1, 2023
Compliance Inspections/LC Release
Report (includes 2 inspections)
$940.00 $960.00 N January 1, 2023
Additional Compliance Inspections $400.00 $410.00 N January 1, 2023
Other Fees
Request for Zoning Information $50.00 $55.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning Certificate - Residential (single,
semi, townhouse, accessory structure)
initial review + 1 revision
$150.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning Certificate - Development (within
infill precincts, ORM, or requiring MDS
calculation) initial review + 1 revision
$580.00 N January 1, 2023
Zoning Certificate - Mixed-use/Multi
Residential/Non-Residential (industrial,
commercial, institutional) initial review + 1
revision
$695.00 N January 1, 2023
Peer Reviews 15 Full recovery of City costs
+ 10% admin. fee
Full recovery of City costs
+ 10% admin. fee
Y January 1, 2023
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2022 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2023 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Minor Revision to Approved Condo Site
Plan (by unit owner) i.e., decks, sheds,
fences
$115.00 $115.00 N January 1, 2023
File Reactivation 16 $2,040.00 $5,230.00 N January 1, 2023
Opinion Letter for Complex Inquiries $560.00 $1,200.00 N January 1, 2023
Add Street Name to Approved List $1,020 $1,070 Y January 1, 2023
Request to Change Municipal Address $1,020 $1,070 Y January 1, 2023
Request for Exception to Council Adopted
Policies on Municipal Addressing and
Street Naming
$5,230.00 $6,040.00 N January 1, 2023
Refund of Application Fees 17 10% Admin. Fee $0 Y January 1, 2023
Film Location Permit $250.00 $350.00 Y January 1, 2023
Film Location Permit and Road Closure $500.00 Y January 1, 2023
Any other matter requiring a Report to
Committee or Council
$6,040.00 N January 1, 2023
1. Fee applicable after Council adoption.
2. Oak Ridges Moraine applications, minor additions to existing bldgs (up to 20% of the current gross floor area), inclusion of related uses,
3. An application for an amendment that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor zoning amendment, and which may have
greater impact beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Major applications must meet one or
more of the following conditions:
- an application relating to more than one property
- a site specific application, if considered to represent a large scale redevelopment
- any change in use and/or zone category, except as identified under a minor amendment
- an application involving significant changes to the development standards or general provisions of the by-law
- an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation
4. Applies to blocks intended to be developed for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses (including school blocks).
5. Excludes lands to be conveyed for roads, parkland, natural hazards, and stormwater or other public infrastructure.
6. An application for minor or small scale zoning amendment having no significant impact on adjoining lands, as determined by the Director,
City Development or designate. Minor applications must be site specific and meet one or more of the following conditions:
- request for additional permitted use, within an existing building with no significant impact on existing development standards
- changes in development standards or zone to accommodate a residential severance to create one additional lot
- application for Temporary Use
7. Pre-Submission Review Charges include two resubmissions before re-circulation fees apply. Recirculation fees will be charged for the
fourth submission and every submission thereafter.
8. An Application may apply for reconsideration provided that the resolution of the issue of concern:
-does not change the nature of the proposal;
-is minor and technical in nature and I not expected to result in fundamental changes to the layout and design of the proposal;
-does not involve re-engagement with the public; and
-does not require recirculation of the application to external agencies.
9. A major Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards do not comply with the City's zoning by-law and a
Report to Council is required.
10. A minor Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards comply with the City's zoning by-law.
11. An application that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor amendment and which may have greater impact or policy
implications beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Major applications must meet one or
more of the following conditions:
- an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation
- an application relating to more than one property
- a site specific application if considered to represent large scale redevelopment or significant change to the designations and permitted uses
- an application involving significant changes to the policies of the Official Plan
12. An application for a minor, site specific and small scale amendment or exception to Official Plan policies and designations, having limited
impact or policy implications beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate.
13. An application to amend a Neighbourhood Development Guideline when the development proposal would necessitate an amendment to
the Guideline or there is no other planning application being processed by Council.
14. Charged only if no other planning applications are being processed by Council.
15. The applicant is responsible for the City's full costs of undertaking the peer review of any studies or drawings submitted in support of the
application. This requirement applies to matters such as, but not limited to, the peer review of traffic, marketing, environmental, noise,
engineering drawings and reports, and architectural drawings.
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2022 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2023 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
16. Fee applies to planning applications that have been inactive over 1 year but less than 2 years. If the file has been inactive 2 or more
years, the file will be closed without notice and a new application will be required with current application fees being applied.
17. Also subject to deduction of credit card fee if paid by credit card.
Attachment #1 to Report PLN 47-22
Report to Council
Report Number: PLN 22-22
Date: April 25, 2022
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Environmental Registry Postings 019-5284 and 019-5285
-Comments on proposed Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone
-File: L-1100-057
Recommendation:
1.That Council endorse the comments prepared by staff in Report PLN 22-22; and
2.That Council authorize staff to respond to Environmental Registry of Ontario numbers
019-5284 and 019-5285 with a copy of Report PLN 22-22 and Council’s resolution
thereon, and that a copy of Report PLN 22-22 be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, MPP Peter Bethlenfalvy, the Regional Municipality of Durham, and
other Durham Area Municipalities.
Executive Summary: On March 30, 2022, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
posted two proposals on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO), numbers 019-5284 and
019-5285, for a 30-day commenting period, to seek input on proposed changes to a number of
pieces of legislation, including the Planning Act. These changes are intended to streamline the
development approvals process and increase housing supply in Ontario.
This report contains comments on, and an assessment of, possible implications of the proposed
legislative changes. Comments are requested by April 29, 2022. City staff are seeking
Council’s endorsement of these comments, and authorization to submit them to the ERO.
Financial Implications: This report has no direct financial implications for the City.
However, Section 2 of the report outlines impacts to the City’s application revenues, should the
proposed Provincial legislation proceed.
1.Background
On March 30, 2022, the government released its More Homes for Everyone Plan, that
proposes targeted policies and initiatives to address market speculation, protect
homebuyers, and increase housing supply. Bill 109 – the More Homes for Everyone
Act, 2022, was introduced as part of this initiative, and the City has an opportunity to
offer feedback on the changes proposed under the legislation. The due date for
municipalities to comment on the draft bill is April 29, 2022.
The More Homes for Everyone Plan was preceded by:
Report PLN 22-22 April 25, 2022
Subject: Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone Page 2
• the Province’s Housing Affordability Task Force’s report released on February 8, 2022;
• the Ontario-Municipal Housing Summit and Rural Housing Roundtable; and
• feedback from municipalities and meetings with the leaders of municipal
organizations.
The two key messages received by the Provincial government were: streamline the
development approvals process; and increase housing supply.
The following sections detail the proposed changes in Bill 109, that are expected to be
of greatest interest to the City, followed by staff’s recommendations in bold.
2. Proposed Changes
2.1 Site Plan Control
The Province is proposing to extend the site plan application review timeframe from
30 to 60 days. The review time referenced is the one that allows an applicant to appeal
the municipality’s failure to approve the submitted plans and drawings to the Ontario
Land Tribunal 30 days after the application is deemed complete. Based on many years of
experience, it is the opinion of staff that 30 days is completely unrealistic to achieve site
plan approval, and that 60 days is equally unrealistic. The City has not had any appeals
of this nature in the past 20 years.
Approval timeframes depend on many things, including response times from commenting
agencies, and staffing resources to process the volume of applications, that are not
always within the City’s control. Some of the agencies with the longest response times
are Provincial (such as the Ministry of Transportation). In addition, applicant response
time to address missing or required material is definitely not within the control of the
municipality, and has a major impact on timeframes.
In 2020, the Planning & Design Division converted to electronic submission, and
circulation of planning applications. The City is continuously improving its development
review process, with the goal of efficiently facilitating development, including that of
quality, and location-appropriate, new housing supply.
Staff recommend that the site plan application review timeframe be based on
realistic timeframes experienced by municipalities across the Province.
2.2 Refund Application Fee
The Province is proposing to require municipalities to refund site plan control application
fees and zoning by-law amendment application fees, on a graduated scale, if a decision
on an application has not been made within the required timeframes.
Requiring the City to refund application fees unfairly places the responsibility for delays
exclusively on municipalities. Commenting agencies that also require a review fee (i.e.,
Durham Region, conservation authorities) are not being required to refund the fees they
collect. It also absolves applicants of responsibility when sub-par studies and application
materials results in multiple resubmissions.
Report PLN 22-22 April 25, 2022
Subject: Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone Page 3
In the case of zoning by-law amendments, this requirement would unfairly penalize the
City for responding to new information brought forward at the public meeting, which
requires further review or analysis.
Development is intended to pay for development. Despite this principle, application fees
only reflect a portion of the overall costs incurred by the City to review applications. The
threat of refunding development application fees will not lead to faster decision making
by municipalities. Instead, it will shift the full cost of municipal review onto the existing
tax payers.
If the Province chooses to move forward with this change, the City could choose to
review and update the Fees By-law by instituting a resubmission fee that is equal to the
amount of the initial application fee. If the City must forfeit the original application fee
due to required revisions to the application materials, the applicant should be held
responsible for the lost revenue and increased timeframes. However, this will still not
address the scenarios, where delays are caused by late responses from public agencies.
Staff strongly recommend that the Province not proceed with this change.
2.3 Plans of Subdivision
The Province is proposing to establish a regulation-making authority to determine what
can and cannot be required as a condition of a draft plan of subdivision approval, with
the goal of preventing scope creep.
It is unclear at this time what conditions will be included within/excluded from subdivision
approvals. Some standards could be Province-wide but others may not be appropriate
since standards should be tied to local context, and specific issues identified during the
review of the subdivision. For example, stormwater management controls differ across
various parts of the municipality, or a condition may be imposed to address a community
or neighbourhood concern.
Staff recommend that the Province not proceed with this change.
In addition, the Province is proposing to grant municipalities a one-time discretionary
authority to reinstate draft plans of subdivision that have lapsed within the past five
years in the cases where units have not been pre-sold.
Staff supports this change, as long as the decision of whether or not to reinstate the
recently lapsed draft plans of subdivision remains at the municipalities’ discretion, and
that such plans still constitute good planning. There may be circumstances where the
underlying conditions have changed since the original approval, that would require a
revision to the original plan of subdivision.
Staff recommend that the Province proceed with this change, provided that
municipalities have the authority to choose whether or not to use it.
Report PLN 22-22 April 25, 2022
Subject: Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone Page 4
2.4 Development Securities
The Province is proposing to establish regulation-making authority to authorize
landowners and applicants to stipulate the type of surety bonds used to secure
obligations in development agreements.
The City currently accepts surety bonds issued by financial institutions that have a credit
rating of “A”, as measured by AM Best rating agency. As part of the rating process
undertaken by the rating agency, a comprehensive analysis is completed, consisting of
quantitative and qualitative evaluation of balance sheet strength, operating performance,
business profile, and enterprise risk. However, a rating of a company is a point in time
measurement, and it cannot be considered as a fact or guarantee of future credit quality
and/or future financial solvency. When a rating agency provides its opinion, it is
provided on an “as is” basis without any expressed or implied warranty. Although the
City tries to mitigate its risks, by only accepting surety bonds issued by highly rated
financial institutions, the surety bond does not provide the same level of guarantee or
financial security as a “Letter of Credit”. If the Province adopts legislation to compel
municipalities to accept surety bonds over letter of credits, the Province should be the
guarantor of last resort to mitigate the financial risk for the City.
Staff recommend that the Province not proceed with this change. If the Province
chooses to proceed with this change, then staff recommend that the Province be
the guarantor of last resort for these bonds.
2.5 New Reporting Requirements
The Province is proposing that the annual treasurer's statement should set out whether
the municipality still anticipates incurring the capital costs projected in the municipality's
DC background study for a given service. If not, an estimate of the anticipated variance
from that projection would be provided along with an explanation for it.
The major concern is what is meant by the term “variance” and “service”. If the terms
encompass detailed analysis, including specific project timing or cost changes, the
reporting could become burdensome.
Staff recommend that the Province release a full draft of the regulation change so
that staff can provide robust feedback.
The Province is proposing that municipalities report on how the municipal need for
parks, set out within their parks plans, is being addressed through the parkland
dedication levies they are collecting.
The need for outdoor amenity space to serve the residents of our City is not being fully
met through the amount of public parkland being acquired from parkland dedication or
equivalent cash contribution. Similar to Development Charges, the City currently reports
the activity for our Parkland Dedication Reserve Fund on our annual Treasurer’s
Statement. If required, the City can also provide a listing of committed and forecasted
projects to give full transparency on how Parkland Dedication levies are being utilized.
Staff have no objection to the Province proceeding with this change.
Report PLN 22-22 April 25, 2022
Subject: Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone Page 5
2.6 Development Related Charges
The Province is proposing to require municipalities to post annual financial reports for
development-related charges on their websites. Since this is already being done by the
City, staff recommend that the Province proceed with this change.
The Province is also proposing to mandate a five-year review cycle of community
benefit charges (CBCs) for municipalities that have implemented them, with a
requirement that councils pass a by-law to indicate if changes are required.
The City’s Finance Department has undertaken work, with the assistance of a consultant,
to develop a CBC strategy by September 2022. Given the dynamic nature of city
development and factors impacting growth, it would be appropriate to mandate a
periodic review of CBCs.
Staff recommend that the Province proceed with this change.
2.7 Parkland Dedication
The Province is proposing to implement a tiered alternative parkland dedication rate,
that would only apply to Transit-Oriented Community developments. For smaller sites
that are 5 hectares or less, the parkland dedication would be up to 10 percent of the
land or equivalent value. For sites larger than 5 hectares, parkland dedication would be
up to 15 percent of the land or its equivalent value. This change is intended to provide
certainty to developers about the parkland commitment/costs associated with
development.
This provision applies only to lands designated, by a Provincial Order in Council, as
Transit Oriented Community land, under the Transit Oriented Communities Act, 2020.
At this time, no parts of Pickering have been designated Transit Oriented Community.
The proposed change would reduce the overall amount of parkland provided at these
high density locations. Currently, municipalities have the ability to request a parkland
ratio of 1 hectare of parkland for every 300 units (or part thereof). The proposed method
for calculating parkland would result in the same amount of parkland being provided
whether the site was developed for 50 units or 500 units.
Staff recommend that the Province not proceed with this change.
In addition, the Province is proposing that a Minister’s order could identify that
encumbered land could be used as part of the parkland dedication requirements
provided to a municipality. This provision is also only for lands designated, by a
Provincial Order in Council, as Transit Oriented Community land, under the Transit
Oriented Communities Act, 2020. Encumbered lands would include lands above
servicing easements which would limit tree plantings and other recreational
infrastructure. In addition, this land may not be appropriately sized or located to provide
effective park space (i.e., long and narrow strips of land).
Staff recommend that the Province not proceed with this change.
Report PLN 22-22 April 25, 2022
Subject: Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone Page 6
2.8 Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator
The Government of Ontario is introducing the Community Infrastructure and Housing
Accelerator (CIHA) tool which would allow municipalities to submit a request to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to expedite approvals for local priorities such
as market-rate housing, non-profit housing, and long-term care facilities. Local councils
would be required to pass a council motion, and to host a public meeting to discuss the
use of a CIHA for each project. Finally, a municipality would submit a request to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs, who could impose conditions on the CIHA. The order,
however, is not required to comply with the Provincial Policy Statement, Provincial
Plans (except the Greenbelt Plan) or official plans.
The new CIHA tool resembles municipally requested Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs),
but with added public consultation requirements to ensure that residents have an
opportunity to provide feedback on such requests. This approach provides more
transparency to the MZO process that has been applied over the last several years.
While the City can still advocate to the Province for rapid approval of development with
high community benefits, this new tool would formalize a process for public engagement
that may resemble a traditional rezoning.
While not needing to comply with higher order provincial planning documents and
official plans, staff caution that any such requests should be located where appropriate
services, facilities, servicing capacity, and other amenities are available. Further, the
location should represent logical and orderly development, and good planning.
Staff recommend that the Province proceed with this change.
2.9 Data Collection
Planning Act amendments are being proposed to require public reporting by planning
authorities on development applications that have been submitted, are deemed
complete, are under review, and approved.
Staff recommend that the Province proceed with this change as this is already
being done by the City.
In addition, the Province is proposing to create a “development approvals data
standard” to ensure a more efficient and streamlined approvals process and
coordination between municipalities and the development industry.
In 2020, the City installed Bluebeam Revu software for the review of building permit
applications. This software and standard practice improvement has facilitated the
electronic submission, circulation, and review of building permit applications, which has
made the overall process more convenient for customers (i.e., submissi ons can be
made remotely rather than in-person). While it has taken time to establish templates
and processes to support paperless plans review, and to train staff, the move to
electronic markup has proven to be an improvement to operations.
Report PLN 22-22 April 25, 2022
Subject: Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone Page 7
With the support of the Provincial Streamline Development Approval Fund, staff are in
the midst of pursuing an expansion of the digital application system to include a public
portal, with user dashboard functionality, which will further integrate processes and
improve the customer experience.
Staff recommend that the Province proceed with this change as this is already
being done by the City.
2.10 Ontario Land Tribunal and the Landlord and Tenant Board
The Province of Ontario is investing $19 million to reduce the backlog of cases and
increase the decision-making speed at the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) and Landlord
and Tenant Board.
Any additional investment to the OLT and Landlord and Tenant Board will provide
benefit to resolving outstanding land use matters and encouraging private investment in
housing and, in particular, the rental market.
Staff recommend that the Province proceed with this change.
2.11 Regional Official Plan Amendments
Amendments are being proposed that allows the Minister, where they are the approval
authority for Regional/Upper tier Official Plans and amendments thereto, to suspend the
120-day approval period, after which the municipalities would be able to appeal the
failure to make a decision. Also, it allows the Minister to refer these approvals to the
OLT for a recommendation and/or a decision.
The ability of suspending the 120-day approval period, in essence suspending the
ability of the municipality to appeal, is an admission that the planning review and
approval process is complex and time consuming.
It appears that this proposed change will add an additional layer of litigation to the
approval process for Regional Official Plans and Amendments. This change would be
counter-productive to the goal of speeding up the approval of new housing approval.
Further details are required to understand the full implications of this change.
Staff recommend that the Province not proceed with this change.
2.12 Planning For Future Growth
The Province is proposing to connect transit ridership forecasts to growth of housing
and employment. In principle, connecting transit investments with population growth
makes sense. However, it is unclear how transit and land use planning will be impacted
by this change.
Staff recommend that the Province provide further information about this change.
Report PLN 22-22 April 25, 2022
Subject: Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone Page 8
2.13 Ontario Homebuyer and Renter Protections
The Province of Ontario is also introducing new provisions to protect residents who buy,
own, and rent homes. This includes:
• increasing the non-resident speculation tax rate from 15% to 20%, and the
expansion of this tax across Ontario;
• establishing a province-wide working group with municipalities who intend on
establish a vacant home tax, where best practices can be shared;
• working to establish measures relating to land speculation, such as construction
shutdowns, which can be used to drive up housing costs;
• amending the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 and the Ontario New
Home Warranties Plan Act to increase the fines and administrative penalties;
• empowering the new home building industry regulator, the Home Construction
Regulatory Authority, with a mandate to address “unethical builder and vendor
conduct”;
• requiring a condominium information sheet for pre-construction units, and increasing
the amount of interest that is payable on new construction units in situations such as
when a project is cancelled, to benefit new homebuyers.
These changes could help prevent land speculation that inflates housing prices, and
could also increase protection of homeowners from unethical practices within the
building industry.
Staff recommend that the Province proceed with these changes.
2.14 Using Surplus Provincial Lands
The Province is proposing a Centre of Realty Excellence (CORE) that would determine
how Ontario could better utilize its portfolio of surplus land for projects, such as long-term
care and non-profit housing. This would include developing a process to streamline
access to these lands for housing providers.
Staff recommend that the Province proceed with this change. The Province may
also consider issuing proposal calls for these lands.
3. Conclusion
The legislation introduced on March 30, 2022 has been posted to the Environmental
Registry of Ontario for a 30-day comment period which closes on April 29, 2022.
According to the current standing orders of the legislature, the final day that the House
may meet before the Provincial election is May 4, 2022.
Staff are doubtful that the changes proposed by Bill 109 will lead to more rapid
development approvals. Simply saying it must be done faster, and imposing financial
penalties directly affecting the funding of staff to process such applications, does not
mean it can be done faster, given the number of applications and the number of
stakeholders who must contribute to the planning approval process. Further, the
Report PLN 22-22 April 25, 2022
Subject: Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone Page 9
proposed changes do not directly provide for the creation of affordable housing or high
quality urban design. Municipalities are being asked to make a number of compromises,
in favour of the idea of accelerated development approvals.
Staff recommend that Council endorse the comments contained within Report PLN 22-22
and direct staff to respond to ERO postings 019-5284 and 019-5285 with a copy of
Report PLN 22-22 and Council’s resolution.
Prepared By:
Original Signed By
Paul Wirch, RPP
Principal Planner, Policy
Original Signed By
Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Policy & Geomatics
Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Original Signed By
Kyle Bentley, P. Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
PW :ld
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
905-272-3600
November 15, 2022 info@watsonecon.ca
Attachment #2 to Report PLN 47-22
Planning Application Fee Review –
Update Study
City of Pickering
________________________
Final Report
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 2022 Update Study ................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Legislative Context for Fees Review ....................................................... 1-3
1.3.1 Planning Act, 1990 ..................................................................... 1-3
1.3.2 Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act,2022 ............................ 1-5
1.3.3 Municipal Act, 2001 .................................................................... 1-6
2. Activity-Based Costing Methodology ............................................................ 2-1
2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Costing Category Definition .................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Processing Effort Cost Allocation ............................................................ 2-4
2.4 Direct Costs ............................................................................................ 2-5
2.5 Indirect Cost Functions and Cost Drivers................................................ 2-6
2.6 Capital Costs .......................................................................................... 2-6
3. Staff Capacity Utilization Results ................................................................... 3-1
4. Cost Recovery Analysis and Full Cost Fee Recommendations .................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Annual Costs of Service and Current Cost Recovery Levels .................. 4-1
4.3 Planning Application Fee Rate Structure Analysis and
Recommendations .................................................................................. 4-3
5. Impact Analysis of Recommended Fee Structure ........................................ 5-1
5.1 Low Density Residential Development Impacts ...................................... 5-1
5.2 Medium Density Residential Development Impacts ................................ 5-2
5.3 High Density Residential Development Impacts ..................................... 5-3
5.4 Retail Development Impacts ................................................................... 5-4
5.5 Industrial Development Impacts .............................................................. 5-5
5.6 Development Impact Analysis Summary ................................................ 5-6
6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 6-1
Table of Contents (Cont’d)
Page
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Appendix A Development Impact Tables ................................................................ A-1
Report
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Chapter 1
Introduction
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-1
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
In 2017, Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson), was retained by the City of
Pickering (City) to undertake a comprehensive update to the development approval
application process (D.A.A.P) fee reviews that Watson had previously undertaken for
the City in 2005 and 2013. The 2017 review assessed the activity-based costs (A.B.C.)
of processing planning applications under the authority of the Planning Act,
development services (engineering) fees under the authority of the Municipal Act, and
building permit fees for the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act.
The 2017 study was, in part, undertaken in response to development patterns within the
City continuing to bring about changes in planning application and building permit
volumes, and changes in application characteristics resulting in budgetary pressures.
Furthermore, there had also been changes to service levels implemented by the City,
regulatory requirements, complexity of applications, and approvals processes.
Since the completion of the 2017 Study the previously witnessed trends in development
activity and nature of the proposed developments have continued to put pressure on
staff resources to process development applications and on revenues to fund the City’s
costs of processing planning applications. Moreover, processing planning applications
are requiring a greater intensity of staff involvement due to increased public
engagement (including increased staff time to facilitate on-line engagements), and to
provide increases in service such as the implementation of the City’s Integrated
Sustainable Design Standards that come into effect January 1, 2023.
1.2 2022 Update Study
In response to the foregoing changes, Watson was requested to undertake an update to
the 2017 Study to with the objective of determining new planning application fees
reflective of the anticipated processing costs of processing planning applications (2022
Fee Update).
During the process of undertaking the 2022 Fee Update, the Province released Bill 109,
More Homes for Everyone Act. One of the amendments to the Planning Act brought
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-2
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
forth through Bill 109 are requirements for municipalities to refund Zoning By-Law
Amendment and Site Plan application fees if legislated timeframes for
decisions/approvals are not met. Furthermore, Bill 109 also includes the ability for
municipalities to deem Site Plan applications incomplete and require additional
information to be provided with the submission of an application.
As such, the City is updating their application approvals procedures to mitigate the
financial risk associated with not meeting the decision/approval timeframes, while
ensuring they are able to continue to provide a high-quality service to applicants and
meet the requirements of the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement pertaining to
development approvals. The proposed procedural changes have been considered in
the fee recommendations and full cost analysis herein. The amendments to the
Planning Act made through Bill 109 are further discussed in Section 1.3.2. and the
proposed procedural changes within the City are discussed in Section 2.3.
The Province has also recently introduced into legislature Bill 23, More Homes Built
Faster Act, 2022. Bill 23 proposes a number of changes to the Planning Act and other
growth management and long-range planning initiatives at the municipal level, amongst
changes to other pieces of legislation. Some of the planning related changes include:
• Increased housing targets by municipality (including for the City);
• Removal of planning policy and approval responsibilities for the Region of
Durham;
• Creation of Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act
2022 to require York and Durham Regions to work together to enlarge and
improve the existing York Durham Sewage System;
• Integration of Place to Grow and Provincial Policy Statement
• Review and revocation of the Central Pickering Development Plan; and
• Changes to expand/support rental and affordable housing supply opportunities.
At the time of writing, Bill 23 has not received Royal Assent and the proposed changes
are not yet in effect. As such, the impacts of those changes have not been considered
within this review and will be assessed by the City as the Bill moves through the
legislative approvals process.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-3
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
This technical report summarizes the legislative context for the 2022 Fee Update,
provides in detail, the methodology utilized to assess the full costs of processing
D.A.A.P. fee applications and presents the full costs of service and recommended fee
schedules.
1.3 Legislative Context for Fees Review
The context for the 2022 Fee Update is framed by the statutory authority available to the
City to recover the costs of service. The statutory authorities that must be considered
are the Planning Act, 1990 which governs the imposition of fees for recovery of the
anticipated costs of processing planning applications, and Part XII (s.391) of the
Municipal Act, 2001 for municipal services without prescribed statutory authority, such
as post planning application approval engineering review and clearance of conditions.
1.3.1 Planning Act, 1990
Section 69 of the Planning Act allows municipalities to impose fees through by-law for
the purposes of processing planning applications. In determining the associated fees,
the Act requires that:
The council of a municipality, by by-law, and a planning board, by
resolution, may establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications
made in respect of planning matters, which tariff shall be designed to meet
only the anticipated cost to the municipality or to a committee of
adjustment or land division committee constituted by the council of the
municipality or to the planning board in respect of the processing of each
type of application provided for in the tariff.
Section 69 establishes many cost recovery requirements that municipalities must
consider when undertaking a full cost recovery fee design study. The Act specifies that
municipalities may impose fees through by-law and that the anticipated costs of such
fees must be cost justified by application type as defined in the tariff of fees (e.g.
Subdivision, Zoning By-Law Amendment, etc.). Given the cost justification
requirements by application type, this would suggest that cross-subsidization of
planning fee revenues across application types is not permissible. For instance, if Site
Plan application fees were set at levels below full cost recovery for policy purposes this
discount could not be funded by Subdivision application fees set at levels higher than
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-4
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
full cost recovery. Our interpretation of the Section 69 is that any fee discount must be
funded from other general revenue sources such as property taxes.
The legislation further indicates that the fees may be designed to recover the
“anticipated cost” of processing each type of application, reflecting the estimated costs
of processing activities for an application type. This reference to anticipated costs
represents a further costing requirement for a municipality. In addition, time spent on
Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) related activities would not constitute application
processing.
It is noted that the statutory requirement is not the actual processing costs related to
any one specific application. As such, actual time docketing of staff processing effort
against application categories or specific applications does not appear to be a
requirement of the Act for compliance purposes. As such our methodology, which is
based on staff estimates of application processing effort, meets with the requirements of
the Act and is in our opinion a reasonable approach in determining anticipated costs.
The Act does not specifically define the scope of eligible processing activities and there
are no explicit restrictions to direct costs as previously witnessed in other statutes.
Moreover, recent amendments to the fee provisions of the Municipal Act and Building
Code Act are providing for broader recognition of indirect costs. Acknowledging that
staff effort from multiple departments are involved in processing planning applications, it
is our opinion that such fees may include direct costs, capital-related costs, support
function costs directly related to the service provided, and general corporate overhead
costs apportioned to the service provided.
The payment of Planning Act fees can be made under protest with appeal to the OLT if
the applicant believes the fees were inappropriately charged or are unreasonable. The
OLT will hear such an appeal and determine if the appeal should be dismissed or direct
the municipality to refund payment in such amount as determined by the Tribunal.
These provisions confirm that fees imposed under the Planning Act are always
susceptible to appeal. Unlike other fees and charges (e.g. development charges) there
is no legislated appeal period related to the timing of by-law passage, mandatory review
period or public process requirements.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-5
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
1.3.2 Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act,2022
The Provincial Government introduced Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 on
March 30, 2022, which subsequently received Royal Assent on April 14, 2022. Bill 109
was in part, introduced in response to the recommendations from Ontario’s Housing
Affordability Task Force that were provided to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing to supporting housing affordability. Bill 109 amends multiple pieces of
legislation including the Planning Act. The amendments to the Planning Act that are
pertinent to this review are summarized below.
1.3.2.1 Complete Application Requirements for Site Plan
Prior to the passage of Bill 109, municipalities had the ability, by by-law, to require
consultation prior to submitting Site Plans for approval . However, municipalities now
also have the ability to refuse an application on the grounds that it is not complete.
Municipalities may now require any other information or material that the municipality
considers it may need if the Official Plan contains provisions relating to the information
requirements. If the municipality does not receive the plans and drawings or the other
required information, the municipality may refuse the application and has 30 days from
the submission of the application to notify the applicant that the application is not
complete.
1.3.2.2 Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application Refund
Requirements
Sections 34 and 41 of the Planning Act, which speak to the approval of Zoning By-law
Amendment and Site Plan applications were amended to include criteria for when
municipalities would be required to refund application fees. Tiered application fee
refunds are now required where a decision on a Zoning By-Law Amendment application
or an approval of a Site Plan application are not made within the legislated timeframes.
The refund requirements, which apply to applications that are received on or after
January 1, 2023, are set out in Table 1-1 below.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-6
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table 1-1
Bill 109 Application Refund Criteria and Timeframes
Fee Refund Zoning By-law
Amendment Applications Site Plan Applications
50% of the fee No decision within 90
days from the date of
complete application*
No approval within 60
days from the date of
complete application*
75% of the fee No decision within 150
days from the date of
complete application*
No approval within 90
days from the date of
complete application*
100% of the fee No decision within 210
days from the date of
complete application*
No approval within 120
days from the date of
complete application*
*Where Zoning By-law Amendment applications are made concurrent with Official Plan Amendment
applications, 50% of the fees are refunded at 120 days, 75% of the fees are refunded at 180 days and
100% of the fees are refunded at 240 days.
Sections 34 and 41 of the Planning Act contain provisions that a municipality may
require by, by-law, that an applicant consult with the municipality before submitting
applications. Both these sections of the Act also contain provisions that if either
prescribed information or other information that a Council may require, if identified in the
Official Plan, is not provided, the Council may refuse to accept or further consider the
application. If the required information and material is not provided, the refund
timeframes referred to Table 1-1 do not begin.
1.3.3 Municipal Act, 2001
Part XII of the Municipal Act provides municipalities and local boards with broad powers
to impose fees and charges via passage of a by-law. These powers, as presented in
s.391 (1), include imposing fees or charges:
• “for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;
• for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf
of any other municipality or any local board; and
• for the use of its property including property under its control.”
This section of the Act also allows municipalities to charge for capital costs related to
services that benefit existing persons. The eligible services for inclusion under this
subsection of the Act have been expanded by the Municipal Statute Law Amendment
Act. Moreover, the amendments to the Act have also embraced the broader recognition
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-7
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
for cost inclusion within municipal fees and charges with recognition under s.391(3) that
“the costs included in a fee or charge may include costs incurred by the municipality or
local board related to administration, enforcement and the establishment, acquisition
and replacement of capital assets”.
Fees and charges included in this review, permissible under the authority of the
Municipal Act would include fees related to engineering review of site works and
drawings, sign variances, and tree conservation permits, amongst others that are not
specifically provided for under the Planning Act.
In contrast to cost justification requirements under other legislation, the Municipal Act
does not impose explicit requirements for cost justification when establishing fees for
municipal services. However, in setting fees and charges for these services,
municipalities should have regard for legal precedents and the reasonableness of fees
and charges. The statute does not provide for appeal of fees and charges to the OLT.,
however, fees and charges may be appealed to the courts if municipalities are acting
outside of their statutory authority. Furthermore, no public process or mandatory term
for fees and charges by-laws is required under the Act. There is, however, a
requirement that municipal procedural by-laws provide for transparency with respect to
the imposition of fees and charges.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Chapter 2
Activity-Based Costing
Methodology
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-1
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
2. Activity-Based Costing Methodology
2.1 Methodology
An A.B.C. methodology, as it pertains to municipal governments, assigns an
organization's resource costs, through activities, to the services provided to the public.
Conventional municipal accounting structures are typically not well suited to the costing
challenges associated with development or other service processing activities, as these
accounting structures are department focussed and thereby inadequate for fully costing
services with involvement from multiple municipal departments. An A.B.C. approach
better identifies the costs associated with the processing activities for specific user fee
types and thus is an ideal method for determining full cost recovery fees.
As illustrated in Figure 2-1, an A.B.C. methodology attributes processing effort and
associated costs from all participating municipal departments to the appropriate user fee
costing categories. The resource costs attributed to processing activities and user fee
categories include direct operating costs, indirect support costs, and capital costs.
Indirect support function and corporate overhead costs are allocated to direct
departments according to operational cost drivers (e.g. information technology costs
allocated based on the relative share of departmental personal computers supported).
Once support costs have been allocated amongst direct departments, the accumulated
costs (i.e. indirect, direct, and capital costs) are then distributed across the various user
fee costing categories, based on the department’s direct involvement in the processing
activities. The assessment of each department’s direct involvement in the application
review process is accomplished by tracking the relative shares of staff processing effort
across each user fee costing category’s sequence of mapped process steps. The
results of employing this costing methodology provides municipalities with a better
recognition of the costs utilized in delivering fee review processes, as it acknowledges
not only the direct costs of resources deployed but also the operating and capital
support costs required by those resources to provide services.
The following sections of this chapter review each component of the A.B.C.
methodology as it pertains to the City’s planning application fee review.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-2
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Figure 2-1
Activity Based Costing Conceptual Cost Flow Diagram
2.2 Costing Category Definition
The fee recoverable services considered within the scope of this study are captured in
various cost objects or costing categories. A critical component of the full cost D.A.A.P.
review undertaken in previous years was the selection of the costing categories. This is
an important first step as the process design, effort estimation, and subsequent costing
is based on these categorization decisions. It is also important from a compliance
standpoint where, as noted previously, the Planning Act requires fees to be cost justified
by application type consistent with the categorization contained within the municipality’s
tariff of fees.
The fee categorization which is shown in Table 2-1 was developed during the City’s
prior fee reviews and was maintained for this update.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-3
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table 2-1
Planning Application Fee Types and Costing Categories
Application Type Costing Category
Plan of Subdivision Plan of Subdivision Plan of Subdivision - Oak Ridges Moraine/Greenbelt Revisions to Draft Approved Plan (Redline Revisions) Major Revisions (prior to Draft Plan Approval)
Plan of Condominium Condominium Common Element Plan of Condominium Condominium Conversion Revisions to Draft Approved Plan (Redline Revisions)
Pickering Official Plan
Amendment Pickering Official Plan - Standard
Pickering Official Plan - Complex Pickering Official Plan - Oak Ridges Moraine/Greenbelt Neighbourhood Development Guideline Amendment OPA-City Initiated
Regional Official Plan
Amendment Regional Official Plan
Site Plan Site Plan (multi-residential, mixed use) Site Plan (commercial) Site Plan (industrial) Site Plan – Minor Revision Site Plan – Major Revision Site Plan-City Initiated
Land Severance Comments Clearance of Conditions
Council authorization to proceed by land division instead of draft plan of
subdivision
Minor Variance Accessory buildings, structures, decks, platforms & driveway widening
Residential Minor (a lot for a Detached dwelling unit, Semi-detached
dwelling unit and/or Freehold Townhouse dwelling unit) Residential Major (all other residential and mixed-use buildings) Institutional, Commercial & Industrial Tabling Fee & Recirculation (applicant initiated) Special Meeting
Part Lot Control By-Law Part Lot Control By-Law
Zoning By-Law Amendment Zoning By-Law Amendment - Standard Zoning By-Law Amendment - Complex Zoning By-Law Amendment - Oak Ridges Moraine/Greenbelt Zoning By-Law Amendment (s.37) Zoning By-Law Remove H Zoning By-law to Lift H – Complex / Block Plan Required ZBA-City Initiated
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-4
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
2.3 Processing Effort Cost Allocation
In undertaking the 2017 Study, each participating staff member’s relative level of effort
in processing planning-related applications was estimated by staff. This involved the
development of application review process templates for each of the above-referenced
application costing categories to guide staff’s estimation of effort expended. These
2017 processing effort estimates were applied to updated annual application volumes to
produce annual processing time per position.
Annual processing efforts per staff position were compared with each individual’s
available annual capacity to determine overall service levels. Subsequent to this initial
capacity analysis, working sessions were held with City staff to further define the scope
and nature of Development Services staff involvement in planning application review
activities and staff utilization levels to ensure resource allocations were reasonable and
reflective of current service levels. Staff efforts related to planning policy, preparation
for and defence of applications at OLT., and special projects not related to planning-
related applications were excluded from the planning-related application processing
activities.
The capacity utilization results are critical to the full cost recovery review because the
associated resourcing costs follow the activity generated effort of each participating staff
member into the respective fee categories. As such, considerable time and effort was
spent with staff ensuring the reasonableness of the capacity utilization results. The
overall staff resource utilization levels resulting from these calculations are provided in
Chapter 3 of this report.
In response to the shorter application review timeframes that apply to Zoning By-Law
Amendment and Site Plan applications before fee refunds would be required, and the
ability to require additional information with a Site Plan application, the City is proposing
to revise their application submission requirements and review procedures. In this
regard the City is bringing forward an Official Plan Amendment, amended pre-
Application Type Costing Category
Minister Zoning Order Minister Zoning Order - Major Minister Zoning Order - Minor
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-5
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
consultation by-law, and revised pre-consultation and pre-submission policies to clarify
what information and reviews will be required prior to submitting a planning application
for approval. These changes, which will apply to Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-
Law Amendment, Site Plan, Subdivision, and Condominium applications, are not
anticipated to increase the overall level of City staff effort or costs. However, working
sessions were held with City staff to understand how the levels of processing effort
described above should be allocated to the pre-submission, application review, and post
approval stages of the development review process. The intent of this assessment was
to allow the City to design fees that better align the timing of cost recovery with when
effort is expended.
2.4 Direct Costs
Direct costs refer to the departmental budget expenditures representing the services
provided. Based on the results of the staff capacity utilization analysis summarized
above, the proportionate share of each individual’s direct costs is allocated to the
respective costing categories. The direct costs included in the City’s costing model are
taken from the City’s 2022 Budget and includes cost components such as:
• Labour Costs, e.g. salary, wages, and benefits;
• Insurance Costs;
• Communication Costs;
• Consulting, Professional and Outside Agency Costs;
• Hardware and Software Maintenance Costs;
• Utility Costs;
• Repairs and Maintenance Costs; and
• Materials, Supplies and Other Services.
It should be noted that transfers to reserves (reserve funds) and transfers to capital
have been excluded from the direct service costs, as these reflect financing costs.
Moreover, capital costs have been provided for separately within the analysis.
The following departments have direct participation in the review and approval of
development applications.
• Mayor and Council;
• Office of the Chief Administrative Officer;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-6
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
• Corporate Services;
• Fire Services;
• Finance;
• Community Services;
• Engineering Services;
• City Development Administration;
• Planning Services; and
• Building Services.
2.5 Indirect Cost Functions and Cost Drivers
An A.B.C. review includes both the direct service cost of providing service activities as
well as the indirect support costs that allow direct service departments to perform these
functions. The method of allocation employed in this analysis is referred to as a step-
down costing approach. Under this approach, support function and general corporate
overhead functions are classified separate from direct service delivery departments.
These indirect cost functions are then allocated to direct service delivery departments
based on a set of cost drivers, which subsequently flow to planning application fee
categories according to staff effort estimates. Cost drivers are a unit of service that best
represent the consumption patterns of indirect support and corporate overhead services
by direct service delivery departments. As such, the relative share of a cost driver (units
of service consumed) for a direct department determines the relative share of
support/corporate overhead costs attributed to that direct service department. An
example of a cost driver commonly used to allocate information technology support
costs would be a department’s share of supported personal computers. Cost drivers
are used for allocation purposes acknowledging that these departments do not typically
participate directly in the development review process, but that their efforts facilitate
services being provided by the City’s direct departments.
2.6 Capital Costs
The inclusion of capital costs within the full cost review follow a methodology similar to
indirect costs. The annual replacement value of assets commonly utilized to provide
direct department services has been included to reflect capital costs of service. The
replacement value approach determines the annual asset replacement value over the
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-7
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
expected useful life of the respective assets. This reflects the annual depreciation of
the asset over its useful life based on current asset replacement values using a sinking
fund approach. This annuity is then allocated across all fee categories based on the
capacity utilization of direct departments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Chapter 3
Staff Capacity Utilization
Results
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-1
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
3. Staff Capacity Utilization Results
The application review processes considered within this assessment involves to varying
degrees, staff from multiple departments across the organization as summarized in
Section 2.4. Processing effort estimates in this study reflect the City’s anticipated
business processes as discussed in Section 2.3, average application volumes, and
staffing allocation patterns in place across City departments. Moreover, the processing
effort estimates were developed with regard to the typical application types undertaken
within the 2018-2022 period. It is important to note that the capacity utilization levels
refer to deployment of staff resources in the provision of services included within the
scope of this review. As a result, staff who are predominantly utilized in processes that
are not part of this review may show low utilization levels, reflecting their allocation of
resources to other service offerings. The utilization figures reflected in this study are
only specific to efforts related to the fee categories under review. They do not
encompass the breadth of job duties regularly undertaken by City staff, the vast majority
of which are not within the scope of this review.
Table 3-1 summarizes the utilization of staff from across the City in processing planning
applications from a percentage of annual time and on a utilized full time equivalent
(FTE) basis. Across the City, 21.9 FTE staff positions are utilized with 86% of those
resources coming from staff within the Planning and Urban Design Division or City
Development Administration. The Planning and Urban Design Division and City
Development Administration are 48% and 55% utilized, respectively, reflecting time
spent on other organizational initiatives such as planning policy which is not included in
the definition of application processing activities. Involvement from staff outside of the
City Development Department account for 14% of the annual staff effort, with the
Engineering department accounting for 10% of the total staff efforts.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-2
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table 3-1
Staff Capacity Utilization by Department/Division
Department Compliment
Utilization
(%)
Utilization
(FTE)
Engineering Services Department 29 8% 2.2
City Development Administration 5 48% 2.4
Planning and Urban Design Division 30 55% 16.5
Other Departments 269 <1% 0.8
Table 3-2 shows the utilization of staff by major costing category grouping based on the
costing categories shown in Table 2-1.
Table 3-2
Staff Utilization by Major Application Type
Application Type % of Total
Subdivision 9%
Condominium 3%
Official Plan 9%
Site Plan 21%
Land Severance 6%
Minor Variance 28%
Zoning By-Law Amendment 17%
Minister Zoning Order 0%
City Initiated Applications 6%
Total 100%
34% of annual planning application review time is spent on Committee of Adjustment
applications (Minor Variance) and comments to Regional Land Division Committee
(Land Severance), 21% of annual time is spent on Site Plan application review, and
17% on Zoning By-Law Amendment application review. These three application types
represent 73% of the total annual time spent on planning application review. As such,
the design of fees in these areas have the greatest impact on the City’s ability to
recover the full cost of service.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-3
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Chapter 4
Cost Recovery Analysis and
Full Cost Fees
Recommendations
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-1
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
4. Cost Recovery Analysis and Full Cost Fee
Recommendations
4.1 Introduction
The annual application processing costs are calculated based on the staff capacity
utilization summarized in Chapter 3 and the City’s 2022 Budget. These annual costs
are compared with annual revenues derived from the City’s current fee structure and
historical average application volumes to inform current cost recovery levels in
aggregate and by application type in Section 4.2. Based on the full cost of service,
application characteristics, proposed changes to application review processes and
procedures, and the fee structures imposed in comparator municipalities, fee
recommendations are summarized in Section 4.3.
4.2 Annual Costs of Service and Current Cost Recovery
Levels
As presented in the introduction, the Planning Act requires fees to be cost justified at
the application type level. Moreover, past OLT decisions require that there is
consideration given to the marginal costs of processing applications of varying size and
complexity. In this regard, planning application review processes have been costed at
the application type and sub-type level. This level of analysis goes beyond the statutory
requirements of cost justification by application type to better understand costing
distinctions at the application sub-type level to provide the basis for a more defensible
fee structure and fee design decisions.
Table 4-1 summarizes the calculated annual application processing costs, based on the
staff capacity utilization summarized in Chapter 3 and the City’s 2022 Budget. These
annual costs are compared with annual revenues derived from the City’s current fee
structure and historical average application volumes. Annual costs of service for
planning application review totals $4.3 million. Direct service costs represent 76% ($3.3
million) of the total costs including both salary, wage, and benefit (SWB) costs and non-
SWB costs. Indirect and capital support costs accounting for the remaining 24% ($1.0
million) of total costs.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-2
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table 4-1
Annual Costs of Service and Cost Recovery for Planning Application Fees (2022$)
Description $
Direct Costs (SWB)
2,628,556
Direct Costs (non-SWB)
621,903
Total Direct Costs
3,250,459
Indirect Costs
1,022,999
Total Direct & Indirect Costs
4,273,458
Capital Replacement Costs
2,690
Total Costs (Direct, Indirect & Capital)
4,276,148
Table 4-2 summarizes the annual processing costs, annual revenues, and cost recovery
levels by application type. Furthermore, the table provides the percentage of costs
recovered from fees by planning application type. In consideration of the legislative
requirements, this information provides the basis for proposed fee recommendations.
In aggregate, planning application fees are recovering 50% of the annual costs of
service resulting in $2.1 million in application costs not being recovered through fees
(i.e. funded through property taxes). Of this shortfall $1.6 million is related to
Committee of Adjustment and City-initiated applications which are not intended to
recover the full cost of service. As such, when excluding the costs and revenues
associated with Committee of Adjustment and City-initiated applications, current
application fees are recovering 78% of the costs of service overall (i.e. $560,000
shortfall).
Cost recovery levels vary significantly by application type. Site Plan and Zoning By-Law
Amendment application fees (which account for 38% of the annual costs of service) are
performing quite well, recovering 97% and 89% of annual costs, respectively. On the
other end of the spectrum, Official Plan Amendment, and Subdivision applications are
recovering 37% and 53%, respectively, of annual costs.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-3
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table 4-2
Planning Application Fee Impacts – Current Fees (2022$)
Application Type
Annual
Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
%
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Subdivision
380,896
203,727 53%
(177,169)
Condominium
113,971
93,565 82%
(20,406)
Official Plan
403,397
149,831 37%
(253,567)
Site Plan
879,063
858,301 98%
(20,763)
Land Severance
264,432
49,746 19%
(214,686)
Minor Variance
1,218,697
120,565 10%
(1,098,132)
Zoning By-Law Amendment
737,068
658,840 89%
(78,228)
Minister Zoning Order
4,365
1,869 43%
(2,497)
City Initiated Applications
274,195 - 0%
(274,195)
Total
4,276,085
2,136,442 50%
(2,139,643)
Total - Excluding City Initiated Applications
4,001,890
2,136,442 53%
(1,865,448)
Total - Excluding City Initiated Applications
Land Severance/Minor Variance
2,518,761
1,966,131 78%
(552,631)
4.3 Planning Application Fee Rate Structure Analysis and
Recommendations
Fee recommendations were developed in regard to the cost-revenue impacts presented
in Table 4-2. The recommended fee structure seeks to align the recovery of processing
costs to application characteristics to balance Planning Act compliance, applicant
benefits and municipal revenue certainty. Furthermore, fee structure changes are being
made for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment, Site Plan, Subdivision,
and Condominium applications. The revised fee structures are proposed to align the
imposition of fees with the level of effort expended by the City under the proposed
application review procedures in response to the shorter decision/approval timeframes
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-4
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
under Bill 109. As discussed in Section 2.3, the City will be requiring a more in-depth
pre-submission review process in advance of the receipt of planning applications. As
such, pre-submission review fees are being proposed to recover these costs. As noted,
earlier, the more in-depth pre-submission review process does not add to the overall
costs of development review in the City.
The recommended fee structure is presented in 2022$ and should be indexed annually
for implementation consistent with cost-of-living increases in the City’s operating
budget. The complete recommended fee schedule is provided in Table 4-3.
The following highlights the proposed fee structure changes.
Pre-Consultation Meetings
The City currently imposes a fee of $350 for Pre-Consultation Meetings. It is proposed
that this fee would be maintained for simple and routine Pre-Consultation Meetings. For
more complex application types a Pre-Consultation Meeting fee of $1,200 is being
proposed.
These fees will not be credited against subsequent application fees payable for the
proposed development.
Plan of Subdivision
Currently the structure of the fee collected by the City includes a base fee of $34,650
plus a variable decreasing block fee per residential unit (i.e. rate decreases as
application increases in size), or a per land area rate for non-residential development.
Furthermore, where future development blocks are being created, the City imposes a
fee per hectare of land. Applications within the Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt are
charged an additional fee of $2,300. As shown in Table 4-2, Subdivision fees are
recovering only 53% of the full costs of service.
Fee Structure Recommendations
In addition to application review fees, the City is proposing to implement Pre-
Submission Review charges to cover staff costs to review information prior to
application submission. These charges would be imposed in the same structure as the
current application fees. These charges would account for two re-circulations within the
review of information before additional re-circulation fees would apply.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-5
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Fees that are currently imposed for a Major Revision (prior to Draft Plan Approval)
would apply in the pre-submission review stage.
Figure 4-1
Subdivision Cost Recovery
Application Type Current Cost Recovery Proposed Cost
Recovery
Subdivision 53% 100%
Plan of Condominium
Plan of Condominium fees are imposed for Draft Plan approval, Common Element
Condominium, and Condominium Conversions. In addition to the application fees, the
City also imposes recirculation fees and Release of Draft Plan of
Condominium/Clearance fees.
Fee Structure Recommendations
Similar to Subdivision applications, Condominium application fees will be split into pre-
submission review and application review fees. As the fees associated with
Condominium applications are currently recovering 82% of costs, the average increase
to Condominium fees is 22%. This will bring Condominium application fees to full cost
recovery levels.
Figure 4-2
Condominium Cost Recovery
Application Type Current Cost Recovery Proposed Cost
Recovery
Condominium 82% 100%
Official Plan Amendment
Currently Official Plan Amendment application fees are imposed for minor and major
types with a surcharge added for applications within the Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt. Fees are also imposed for Regional Official Plan Amendment applications.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-6
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
As shown in Table 4-2, fees for these applications are currently recovering only 37% of
the full cost of service and as such 170% increases in fees would be required to move
to full cost recovery levels.
Fee Structure Recommendations
Pre-Submission Review charges will also be implemented for Official Plan Amendment
applications. Due to the significant increases that would be required to move to full cost
recovery levels, the City is proposing to implement only 50% of the proposed increase
at this time (see Table 4-3).
Figure 4-3
Official Plan Cost Recovery
Application Type Current Cost Recovery Proposed Cost
Recovery
Official Plan Amendment 37% 69%
Site Plan Approval
Current application fees are comprised of a base application fee plus a decreasing
block fee for residential units and a fee for each 2,000 m2 (or part thereof) of non-
residential gross floor area created.
Fee Structure Recommendations
Similar to previous application types, Pre-Submission Review charges will be imposed
in the same structure as the current application fees. Minor and major revision fees will
be applied, as needed, during the pre-submission stage. Furthermore, the City will also
be implementing a flat fee for the involvement of Development Services staff in the
preparation of a Site Plan agreement and clearance of Site Plan conditions. Additional
legal and engineering fees may also apply for the preparation and registration of the
agreement and detailed engineering review and inspections.
Re-circulation fees will be applied to re-circulations after the second re-circulation during
the pre-submission review process. No re-circulations will be accepted during the
application review stage.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-7
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Figure 4-4
Site Plan Cost Recovery
Application Type Current Cost Recovery Proposed Cost
Recovery
Site Plan 98% 100%
Zoning By-Law Amendment
Currently Zoning By-Law Amendment fees are imposed using a similar structure to Plan
of Subdivision fees (i.e. base fee plus decreasing block per residential unit fee, per non-
residential hectare of land, and per hectare for development blocks). Surcharges are
also imposed for development within the Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt.
Fee Structure Recommendations
Zoning By-Law Amendment application fees will now be comprised of a Pre-Submission
Review and Application Review fee.
Where an application has been denied by Council, the Applicant may apply for
reconsideration provided that the resolution of the issue of concern:
• does not change the nature of the proposal;
• is minor and technical in nature and is not expected to result in fundamental
changes to the layout and design of the proposal;
• does not involve re-engagement with the public; and
• does not require recirculation of the application to external agencies.
In that instance, a new fee of $5,230 would be imposed for the reconsideration of the
application.
Re-circulation fees will be applied for re-circulations after the second re-circulation
during the pre-submission review process. No re-circulations will be accepted during
the application review stage.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-8
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Figure 4-5
Zoning By-Law Amendment Cost Recovery
Application Type Current Cost Recovery Proposed Cost
Recovery
Zoning By-Law
Amendment
89% 100%
Committee of Adjustment Fees
Currently Minor Variance fees are imposed for minor residential, major residential, and
institutional, commercial, and industrial uses. Separate fees are proposed for
applications that deal with a single or multiple variances to the Zoning By-Law.
Land Severance fees are imposed for City comments and for the clearance of
conditions.
Fee Structure Recommendations
Committee of Adjustment applications have historically been set below full cost recovery
levels in the City to reflect the fact that applicants are often existing residents and
business owners of the City. These applications are typically required to accommodate
construction related to the current use and enjoyment of the property and will not
significantly increase the property’s overall value and usability. To improve cost
recovery levels, it is proposed that Minor Variance fees are increased by 20% and Land
Severance fees are increased by 50%. In comparison to the fees imposed by other
area municipalities in Durham Region, the proposed increase would move the City to
the top of the ranking for this type of fee. However, the proposed fees would be
competitive in comparison to the fees in municipalities across the Greater Toronto Area.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-9
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Figure 4-6
Minor Variance and Land Severance Cost Recovery
Application Type Current Cost Recovery Proposed Cost
Recovery
Minor Variance and Land
Severance
11% 15%
Other Recommendations
Zoning By-Law and Site Plan applications will no longer be accepted concurrently with
any other application types due to the implications that processing concurrent
applications may have on the City being able to meet the legislated timeframes before
when refunds would be payable.
Fees for responding to requests for Minister’s Zoning Orders are being increased to
recover the full cost of service (i.e. $6,710 for major and $5,370 for minor).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-10
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table 4-3
Recommended Planning Application Fees– Recommended Fees (2022$)
Description 2022 Fee Payable Proposed Fee
Pre-Consultation $350.00
Pre-Consultation Meetings
Simple 2 $350.00
Complex $1,200.00
Telecommunications Tower Approval
(Radiocommunication/Broadcasting Antenna Systems)$8,910.00 $8,910.00
Applications to recognize an “As built condition”Double the regular fee Double the regular fee
Accessory buildings, structures, decks, platforms & driveway widening $685.00 $820.00
Residential Minor
a lot for a detached dwelling unit, semi-detached dwelling unit and/or
freehold townhouse dwelling unit
Single variance $920.00 $1,100.00
Multiple Variances $1,155.00 $1,390.00
Residential Major
all other residential and mixed use buildings
Single variance $2,000.00 $2,400.00
Multiple Variances $2,255.00 $2,710.00
Institutional, Commercial & Industrial
Single variance $2,530.00 $3,040.00
Multiple Variances $2,960.00 $3,550.00
Tabling Fee & Recirculation (applicant initiated)$630.00 $760.00
Special Meeting $4,025.00 $4,830.00
Authorization to Apply for Variance Under Section 45(1.4) of the Planning
Act
$5,755.00 $6,906.00
Pre-submission Review
Zoning By-law Amendment – Major $9,590.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$260.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$190.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$160.00
Next 800 units (201-1,000)$65.00
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Hectare of Land Area 3 $525.00
Plus Fee per Development Block Hectare of Land Area 4 $330.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $1,320.00
Removal of Holding Zone $1,980.00
Removal of Holding Zone - Complex/Block Plan required $9,590.00
Extension of Temporary Use By-law $9,590.00
Zoning By-law Amendment – Minor $6,690.00
Recirculation of Zoning By-law Amendment 1 $2,000.00
Application Review
Zoning By-law Amendment – Major $17,700.00 $10,100.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$450.00 $240.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$335.00 $180.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$275.00 $145.00
Next 800 units (201-1,000)$110.00 $60.00
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Hectare of Land Area 3 $910.00 $485.00
Plus Fee per Development Block Hectare of Land Area 4 $575.00 $305.00
Committee of Adjustment (Minor Variance)
Zoning By-law Amendment
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-11
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table 4-3 (Cont’d)
Recommended Planning Application Fees– Recommended Fees (2022$)
Description 2022 Fee Payable Proposed Fee
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $2,300.00 $1,250.00
Removal of Holding Zone $3,450.00 $1,830.00
Removal of Holding Zone - Complex/Block Plan required $4,375.00 $10,100.00
Extension of Temporary Use By-law $17,710.00 $10,100.00
Zoning By-law Amendment – Minor $12,650.00 $6,500.00
Recirculation of Zoning By-law Amendment 1 $1,300.00 n/a
Reconsideration Fee 5 $5,230.00
Pre-submission Review
Pickering Official Plan Amendment – Major $45,500.00
Pickering Official Plan Amendment – Minor $21,650.00
Recirculation of Pickering Official Plan Amendment 1 $2,000.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $3,300.00
Application Review
Pickering Official Plan Amendment – Major $48,000.00 $43,500.00
Pickering Official Plan Amendment – Minor $23,000.00 $20,750.00
Recirculation of Pickering Official Plan Amendment 1 $1,300.00 n/a
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $2,300.00 $3,000.00
Neighbourhood Development Guideline Amendment $1,600.00 $4,300.00
Draft Plan of Subdivision
Pre-submission Review
Draft Plan of Subdivision $32,800.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$470.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$380.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$300.00
Next 800 units (201-1,000)$190.00
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Hectare of Land Area 3 $150.00
Plus Fee per Development Block Hectare of Land Area 4 $95.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $1,000.00
Recirculation of Draft Plan of Subdivision 1 $2,000.00
Application Review
Draft Plan of Subdivision $34,650.00 $34,600.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$560.00 $575.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$450.00 $465.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$355.00 $365.00
Next 800 units (201-1,000)$225.00 $230.00
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Hectare of Land Area 3 $180.00 $185.00
Plus Fee per Development Block Hectare of Land Area 4 $110.00 $115.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $2,300.00 $2,500.00
Recirculation of Draft Plan of Subdivision 1 $1,300.00 $2,000.00
Release of Draft Plan of Subdivision/Clearance Fee $1,300.00 $2,000.00
Revisions to Draft Approved Plan (Red Lined Revisions)$13,860.00 $26,600.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$560.00 $575.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$460.00 $465.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$335.00 $365.00
Next 800 units (201-1,000)$225.00 $230.00
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Hectare of Land Area 3 $180.00 $185.00
Plus Fee per Development Block Hectare of Land Area 4 $110.00 $115.00
Pickering Official Plan Amendment
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-12
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table 4-3 (Cont’d)
Recommended Planning Application Fees– Recommended Fees (2022$)
Description 2022 Fee Payable Proposed Fee
Major Revisions (prior to Draft Plan Approval)$11,560.00 $22,200.00
Plus Fee per Additional Residential Units
First 25 units (1-25)$560.00 $575.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$460.00 $465.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$335.00 $365.00
Next 800 units (201-1,000)$225.00 $230.00
Plus Fee per Non-Residential Hectare of Land Area 3 $180.00 $185.00
Plus Fee per Development Block Hectare of Land Area 4 $110.00 $115.00
Draft Plan of Condominium
Pre-submission Review
Draft Plan of Condominium $5,400.00
Common Element Condominium $7,900.00
Application for Condominium Conversion $7,900.00
Application Review
Draft Plan of Condominium $16,720.00 $13,600.00
Common Element Condominium $23,000.00 $19,300.00
Application for Condominium Conversion $23,000.00 $19,300.00
Release of Draft Plan of Condominium/Clearance Fee $1,300.00 $2,000.00
Recirculation of Draft Plan of Condominium 1 $1,300.00 $2,000.00
Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan (Red Line Revisions)$2,420.00 $3,100.00
Pre-submission Review
Site Plan (Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)$5,300.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$370.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$300.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$225.00
Next 800 units (201-1,000)$55.00
Plus Fee per 2,000m2 of Non-Residential GFA $4,405.00
Recirculation 1 $2,000.00
Application Review
Site Plan (Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)$9,975.00 $2,900.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$560.00 $145.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$450.00 $115.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$335.00 $85.00
Next 800 units (201-1,000)$85.00 $20.00
Plus Fee per 2,000m2 of Non-Residential GFA $6,630.00 $1,695.00
Minor Revision of approved Site Plans $2,300.00 $0.00
Major Revision of approved Site Plans $9,215.00 $0.00
Compliance Inspections/Conformity/LC Release Report (includes 2
inspections)
$940.00 $960.00
Additional Compliance Inspections $400.00 $410.00
Site Plan Agreement and Clearance of Conditions n/a $7,300.00
Minor Revision to Approved Condo Site Plan (by unit owner, i.e. decks,
sheds, fences)
$115.00 $115.00
Site Plan Approval
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-13
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table 4-3 (Cont’d)
Recommended Planning Application Fees– Recommended Fees (2022$)
Based on the foregoing recommendations, the annual application fees will move to full
cost recovery levels except for Official Plan Amendment, Minor Variance and Land
Severance applications. In aggregate, cost recovery levels will increase from 50% to
61%, or a 23% increase in revenue. Excluding Committee of Adjustment and City-
initiated applications, cost recovery performance will increase rom 78% to 95%.
Description 2022 Fee Payable Proposed Fee
File Reactivation $2,040.00 $5,230.00
Opinion Letter for Complex Inquiries $560.00 $1,200.00
Peer Reviews
the applicant is responsible for the City’s full costs of undertaking the peer
review of any studies or drawings submitted in support of the application; this
requirement applies to matters such as, but not limited to, the peer review of
site plans, traffic, marketing, environmental, noise, engineering drawings and
reports, and architectural drawings
Full recovery of the
City cost plus 10%
administrative fee +
HS T
Full recovery of the
City cost plus 10%
administrative fee +
HS T
Add Street Name to Approved List 1,020.00 +HST 1,020.00 +HST
Request to Change Municipal Address 1,020.00 + HST 1,020.00 + HST
Refund of Application Fees Fees paid minus 10%
Administrative fee and
minus (if applicable)
credit card fee
Film Location Permit (public road use)$250.00 + HST $250.00 + HST
Request for Zoning Information $50.00 $50.00
Request for Exception to Council Adopted Policies on Municipal
Addressing and Street Naming $5,230.00 $5,230.00
Regional Official Plan Amendment
(not part of a Pickering Official Plan Amendment)
$13,800.00 $37,100.00
Land Division – City Comments $1,725.00 $2,600.00
Land Division – Clearance of City Conditions $865.00 $1,300.00
Council authorization to proceed by land division instead of draft plan of
subdivision
$5,750.00 $8,670.00
Minister’s Zoning Order Amendment – Major $2,875.00 $6,710.00
Minister’s Zoning Order Amendment – Minor $2,300.00 $5,370.00
4. Excludes lands to be conveyed for roads, parkland, natural hazards, and stormwater or other public infrastructure.
5. An Application may apply for reconsideration provided that the resolution of the issue of concern:
-does not change the nature of the proposal;
-is minor and technical in nature and I not expected to result in fundamental changes to the layout and design of the proposal;
-does not involve re-engagement with the public; and
-does not require recirculation of the application to external agencies.
1. Pre-Submission Review Charges include two resubmissions before re-circulation fees apply. Recirculation fees will be
charged for the fourth submission and every submission thereafter.
2. Oak Ridges Moraine applications, minor additions to existing bldgs (up to 20% of the current gross floor area), inclusion of
related uses, etc.
3. Applies to blocks intended to be developed for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses (including school blocks)
Please check with either the Regional Planning Department or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Applications from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Other Processing Fees
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Chapter 5
Impact Analysis of
Recommended Fee Structure
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-1
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
5. Impact Analysis of Recommended Fee Structure
To understand the impacts of the fee structure recommendations, an impact analysis for
sample developments has been prepared. In addition to providing the fee impacts for
the City of Pickering, Figures 5-1 through 5-5 provide development fee comparisons for
municipalities across the Greater Toronto Area. Detailed data tables for each of the
comparisons are presented in Appendix A. The development fee comparison includes
planning-related application fees, building permit fees, development engineering fees,
and development charges from the lower-tier and upper-tier municipalities. The
comparisons illustrate the impacts of the fee structure recommendations in the context
of the total development fees payable to provide a broader context for fee
considerations. Note that the fees imposed by other Greater Toronto Area
municipalities are as of November 1, 2022 and do not include potential fee increases
that may be under consideration.
Five development types have been considered, including:
• Low Density Residential – example includes a 100-unit low density residential
development requiring an Official Plan Amendment, Plan of Subdivision and
Zoning By-law Amendment application;
• Medium Density Residential – example includes a 50-unit medium density
(townhouse) residential development requiring Zoning By-law Amendment,
Condominium, and Site Plan applications;
• High Density Residential – example includes a 200-unit residential high density
(apartment) with 500 m2 of commercial development, requiring Official Plan
Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Condominium, and Site Plan
applications;
• Retail – example includes a 1,000 square metre retail development requiring Site
Plan Approval and Zoning By-law Amendment applications; and
• Industrial – example includes 10,000 square metre industrial development
requiring Site Plan Approval and Zoning By-Law Amendment applications.
5.1 Low Density Residential Development Impacts
The total fees that would be charged for a residential subdivision with 100 single
detached units are presented in Figure 5-1. These fees can be expressed on a per unit
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-2
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
basis. A 100-unit low density development in the City would pay $681 per unit for
Official Plan Amendments fees, $542 per unit in Zoning-By-Law Amendment fees, and
$888 per unit in Subdivision fees, under the City’s current fee structure.
Under the recommended fee structure, Official Plan Amendment Fees would increase
to $1,094 (+61%), Zoning-By-Law Amendment fees would increase to $607 per unit
(+12%) and Subdivision fees would increase to $1,643 per unit (+85%). Including
development charges, development engineering fees, and building permit fees, the total
development fees for this type of development within the City would increase by 1.5%
based on the fee recommendations. The proposed changes would not change the
relative position of the City within the overall ranking of municipalities surveyed (i.e. 19th
out of 20 municipalities).
Figure 5-1
Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Residential Subdivision
(100 Single Detached Units)
5.2 Medium Density Residential Development Impacts
The total fees that would be charged for a residential condominium with 50 townhouses
are presented in Figure 5-2. The planning application fees (i.e. Zoning By-Law
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
Survey of Fees Related to a Residential Subdivision Development
(100 Single Dwelling Units, 185 m² GFA each)
Official Plan Amendment Plan of Subdivision Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Engineering Fees Development Charges
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-3
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Amendment, Condominium, and Site Plan) that a 50-unit residential townhouse
condominium in the City would pay are equivalent to $1,982 per unit under the City’s
current fee structure.
Under the recommended fee structure total planning application fees would increase to
$2,267 per unit (+14%), including $844 per unit (+13%) for Zoning By-Law Amendment
fees, $802 per unit (+11%) for Site Plan application fees, and $620 per unit (+22%) for
Condominium. Including development charges, development engineering fees, and
building permit fees, the total development fees for this type of development within the
City would increase by 0.4%. The proposed changes would not change the City’s
relative position within the overall ranking of municipalities surveyed as shown in Figure
5-2.
Figure 5-2
Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Residential Condominium
(50 Medium-Density Townhouse)
5.3 High Density Residential Development Impacts
The total fees that would be charged for a development with 200 apartment units and
500 m2 of commercial development are presented in Figure 5-3. A 200-unit mixed use
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
Survey of Fees Related to a Residential Townhouse Development
(50 Units, 139 m² GFA each)
Plan of Condominium Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Engineering Fees Development Charges
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-4
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
apartment development in the City would pay the equivalent of $340 per unit in Official
Plan Amendment, $100 per unit in Plan of Condominium fees, $470 per unit in Site Plan
fees, and $416 per unit in Zoning-By-Law Amendment fees under the current fee
structure.
Under the recommended fee structure, total planning application fees would increase
from $1,327 to $1,596 per unit (+20%). Including development charges, development
engineering fees, and building permit fees, total development fees for this type of
development would increase by 0.6%. The proposed changes would marginally
increase the City’s position within the overall ranking of municipalities surveyed (based
on data as of November 1, 2022) as presented in Figure 5-3 (i.e. increase to 17th from
19th).
Figure 5-3
Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Residential Condominium
(200-unit mixed use development)
5.4 Retail Development Impacts
The total fees that would be charged for a 1,000 square metre retail development are
presented in Figure 5-4. A 1,000 square metre retail development in the City would pay
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
Survey of Fees Related to a Mixed-Use Development
(200 Units, 83 m² GFA each, 500m² Non-Residential GFA)
Official Plan Amendment Plan of Condominium Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Engineering Fees Development Charges
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-5
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
$32,553 in Site Plan and Zoning-By-Law Amendment application fees under the City’s
current fee structure.
Under the recommended fee structure, total planning application fees would increase by
26%. Including development charges, development engineering fees, and building
permit fees, total development fees for this type of development would increase by
2.0%. The proposed changes would not result in a change to the City’s current
competitive position in the ranking of total fees payable (i.e. 19th out of 20 municipalities)
Figure 5-4
Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Retail Development
(1,000 Square Metres)
5.5 Industrial Development Impacts
The total fees that would be charged for a 10,000 square metre industrial development
are presented in Figure 5-5. This development proceeding through Zoning By-Law
Amendment and Site Plan approvals in the City would pay $64,845 in planning
application fees based on the City’s current fee structure. With the recommended fee
increases, the total planning application fees would increase to $71,280 (+10%).
Including development charges, development engineering, and building permit fees,
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
Survey of Fees Related to Retail Development
(1,000 m² GFA)
Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Engineering Fees Development Charges
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-6
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
total development fees for this type of development would increase by 0.3% with the
proposed changes, marginally increasing the City’s position in the comparator
municipalities from 16th to 15th.
Figure 5-5
Development Fee Impacts Survey for an Industrial Development
(10,000 Square Metres)
5.6 Development Impact Analysis Summary
Planning application fees represent a relatively small proportion of the total municipal
cost of development. In the sample residential development types considered, the
recommended planning application fees represented:
• 3.4% for low-density residential development;
• 3.4% for medium-density residential development;
• 3.6% for high-density residential development;
For the sample non-residential development types, the share of the overall cost is larger
for smaller developments (9.5%) vs. larger developments (3.0%) due to largely fixed
planning application costs and limited economies of scale.
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
Survey of Fees Related to Industrial Development
(10,000 m² GFA)
Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Engineering Fees Development Charges
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-7
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Impacts of implementing the recommended planning application fees on total municipal
development costs results in increases of:
• 0.4% to 1.5% for residential development; and
• 0.3% to 2.0% for non-residential development.
The foregoing assessment of total development fees payable does not include cash-in-
lieu of parkland that would be payable, nor does it include any proposed changes to
development review and planning policy procedures within Bill 23. While the approval
of these proposed fees would not significantly change the ranking of the City within the
municipal comparators, it would further demonstrate the relatively minor role that
planning application fees play in the total cost of municipal development fees.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Chapter 6
Implementation Plan and
Conclusion
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6-1
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
6. Conclusion
Summarized in this technical report is the legislative context for the planning application
fee review, the methodology undertaken, A.B.C. results and full cost of service, and fee
structure recommendations. In developing the recommended fee structure, careful
consideration was given to keeping fees reasonable and proportional to the to the total
cost of municipal development, market competitiveness, and to the recent trends
pertaining to planning fees, including past comments of the OLT concerning planning
application fees. Furthermore, fee structure recommendations were made to recognize
the proposed changes in application review procedures, including more substantial pre-
submission review requirements.
The intent of the fees review is to provide the City with a recommended fee structure for
Council’s consideration to appropriately recover the service costs from benefiting
parties. The City will ultimately determine the level of cost recovery and implementation
strategy that is suitable for their objectives.
Appendices
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Appendix A
Development Impact Tables
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-2
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Appendix A: Development Impact Tables
Table A-1
Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Residential Subdivision
(100 Single Detached Units)
Rank Municipality
Official Plan
Amendment
Plan of
Subdivision
Zoning By-Law
Amendment
Building
Permit Fees
Engineering
Fees
Development
Charges Total Planning Fees
Total
Planning Fees
% of Total % Increase
1 Vaughan, City of $68,782 $154,923 $50,654 $377,279 $116,250 $15,187,500 $15,955,387 $274,358 1.7%
2 Markham, City of $105,332 $390,027 $57,284 $357,863 $223,100 $14,448,100 $15,581,707 $552,644 3.5%
3 East Gwillimbury, Town of $54,739 $92,431 $21,857 $290,000 $77,500 $13,400,700 $13,937,227 $169,027 1.2%
4 King, Township of $47,348 $61,794 $11,060 $315,870 $46,500 $12,622,300 $13,104,872 $120,202 0.9%
5 Mississauga, City of $35,250 $85,505 $130,696 $342,626 $85,000 $12,183,227 $12,862,305 $251,451 2.0%
6 Oakville, Town of $38,458 $79,593 $27,920 $330,735 $103,900 $12,216,488 $12,797,093 $145,971 1.1%
7 Caledon, Town of $43,332 $120,749 $23,235 $250,095 $93,000 $12,208,328 $12,738,739 $187,316 1.5%
8 Newmarket, Town of $55,876 $154,533 $25,256 $287,442 $77,500 $11,955,200 $12,555,807 $235,665 1.9%
9 Brampton, City of $19,852 $31,395 $21,384 $295,803 $0 $11,972,156 $12,340,591 $72,632 0.6%
10 Aurora, Town of $68,845 $176,314 $26,146 $323,303 $93,000 $11,518,100 $12,205,707 $271,304 2.2%
11 Richmond Hill, City of $80,404 $110,964 $15,683 $311,225 $159,650 $10,996,747 $11,674,674 $207,052 1.8%
12 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of $55,067 $108,828 $28,669 $326,000 $0 $11,154,700 $11,673,264 $192,564 1.6%
13 Halton Hills, Town of $45,868 $108,532 $16,765 $337,052 $89,750 $10,890,388 $11,488,356 $171,166 1.5%
14 Georgina, Town of $48,669 $82,078 $20,353 $338,000 $83,700 $10,835,700 $11,408,500 $151,100 1.3%
15 Milton, Town of $30,989 $96,049 $16,255 $309,739 $128,500 $10,082,988 $10,664,520 $143,293 1.3%
16 Burlington, City of $96,968 $89,951 $14,312 $375,142 $108,500 $9,547,488 $10,232,362 $201,231 2.0%
17 Whitby, Town of $56,828 $133,469 $12,600 $379,602 $93,465 $8,663,254 $9,339,218 $202,897 2.2%
18 Ajax, Town of $65,895 $67,674 $25,562 $250,838 $97,700 $8,086,500 $8,594,170 $159,131 1.9%
19 Pickering, City of - Calculated $109,400 $164,300 $60,740 $273,135 $101,250 $7,856,100 $8,564,925 $334,440 3.9% 1.5%
20 Pickering, City of $68,117 $88,817 $54,192 $273,135 $101,250 $7,856,100 $8,441,610 $211,125 2.5%
21 Oshawa, City of $36,846 $46,822 $4,392 $272,392 $109,440 $7,765,700 $8,235,592 $88,061 1.1%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-3
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table A-2
Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Residential Condominium
(50 Medium-Density Townhouse)
Rank Municipality Plan of
Condominium Site Plan Zoning By-Law
Amendment
Building
Permit Fees
Engineering
Fees
Development
Charges Total Planning Fees
Total
Planning Fees
% of Total % Increase
1 Vaughan, City of $34,035 $58,737 $36,554 $141,480 $42,200 $6,361,500 $6,674,505 129,325 1.9%
2 Markham, City of $52,896 $144,577 $57,284 $134,198 $52,912 $5,912,050 $6,353,918 254,758 4.0%
3 East Gwillimbury, Town of $36,111 $42,659 $21,857 $108,750 $10,000 $5,553,050 $5,772,428 100,628 1.7%
4 King, Township of $21,289 $20,000 $11,060 $118,451 $6,000 $5,325,200 $5,502,000 52,349 1.0%
5 Newmarket, Town of $47,436 $71,220 $25,256 $107,791 $18,000 $4,929,250 $5,198,952 143,911 2.8%
6 Mississauga, City of $25,368 $37,127 $95,156 $128,485 $19,500 $4,836,834 $5,142,470 157,651 3.1%
7 Caledon, Town of $33,005 $43,636 $23,235 $93,786 $12,000 $4,806,550 $5,012,211 99,876 2.0%
8 Aurora, Town of $35,708 $54,745 $26,146 $121,238 $12,000 $4,692,650 $4,942,486 116,598 2.4%
9 Brampton, City of $11,828 $66,323 $21,384 $110,926 $0 $4,669,820 $4,880,282 99,536 2.0%
10 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of $57,824 $39,136 $28,669 $122,250 $0 $4,631,700 $4,879,580 125,630 2.6%
11 Richmond Hill, City of $51,378 $36,679 $15,683 $116,709 $20,600 $4,580,993 $4,822,043 103,741 2.2%
12 Georgina, Town of $59,303 $43,570 $20,353 $126,750 $10,800 $4,511,200 $4,771,976 123,226 2.6%
13 Oakville, Town of $28,230 $42,207 $34,558 $124,026 $12,000 $4,422,325 $4,663,345 104,994 2.3%
14 Halton Hills, Town of $55,933 $35,448 $43,204 $126,395 $0 $3,687,450 $3,948,430 134,585 3.4%
15 Milton, Town of $91,043 $13,899 $30,105 $116,152 $26,000 $3,646,925 $3,924,124 135,047 3.4%
16 Whitby, Town of $13,238 $31,500 $27,113 $142,351 $24,760 $3,449,917 $3,688,879 71,851 1.9%
17 Burlington, City of $6,245 $29,535 $43,531 $140,678 $14,000 $3,345,750 $3,579,739 79,311 2.2%
18 Ajax, Town of $15,182 $46,275 $25,562 $94,064 $12,800 $3,277,150 $3,471,034 87,020 2.5%
19 Pickering, City of - Calculated $31,000 $40,110 $42,240 $102,426 $6,500 $3,155,350 $3,377,626 113,350 3.4% 0.4%
20 Pickering, City of $25,417 $36,282 $37,442 $102,426 $6,500 $3,155,350 $3,363,416 99,140 2.9%
21 Oshawa, City of $17,980 $24,318 $10,514 $102,147 $5,755 $3,175,550 $3,336,265 52,813 1.6%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-4
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table A-3
Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Residential Condominium
(200 Unit Mixed Use Apartment)
Rank Municipality
Official Plan
Amendment
Plan of
Condominium Site Plan Zoning By-Law
Amendment
Building
Permit Fees
Engineering
Fees
Development
Charges Total Planning Fees
% of Total % Increase
1 Vaughan, City of $68,649 $34,035 $120,169 $61,856 $363,358 $95,600 $17,258,120 18,001,786$ 1.6%
2 Markham, City of $105,268 $52,832 $491,363 $60,520 $306,200 $113,392 $16,443,955 17,573,528$ 4.0%
3 East Gwillimbury, Town of $54,739 $36,111 $101,129 $25,157 $266,920 $15,000 $14,961,750 15,460,807$ 1.4%
4 King, Township of $47,286 $21,227 $26,038 $14,298 $292,783 $9,000 $14,290,665 14,701,295$ 0.7%
5 Mississauga, City of $35,250 $31,576 $65,568 $183,301 $342,940 $26,500 $13,847,506 14,532,642$ 2.2%
6 Newmarket, Town of $55,787 $47,436 $122,450 $28,556 $329,954 $27,000 $13,409,190 14,020,372$ 1.8%
7 Caledon, Town of $43,144 $40,616 $48,917 $23,047 $214,516 $18,000 $13,201,527 13,589,767$ 1.1%
8 Brampton, City of $19,802 $11,778 $89,823 $21,900 $308,161 $0 $13,134,904 13,586,367$ 1.1%
9 Aurora, Town of $68,810 $35,673 $99,260 $29,411 $282,450 $18,000 $12,953,320 13,486,924$ 1.7%
10 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of $55,025 $121,785 $74,997 $31,880 $356,196 $0 $12,819,527 13,459,411$ 2.1%
11 Richmond Hill, City of $80,351 $107,674 $47,042 $18,930 $376,364 $30,900 $12,609,545 13,270,806$ 1.9%
12 Georgina, Town of $48,615 $114,413 $43,509 $23,593 $359,557 $16,200 $12,652,390 13,258,277$ 1.7%
13 Oakville, Town of $38,432 $256,354 $66,601 $47,202 $402,274 $18,000 $12,019,476 12,848,338$ 3.2%
14 Halton Hills, Town of $54,707 $59,357 $60,773 $22,561 $309,925 $0 $10,883,506 11,390,829$ 1.7%
15 Burlington, City of $96,843 $62,379 $64,543 $81,654 $389,963 $21,000 $9,691,956 10,408,338$ 2.9%
16 Milton, Town of $31,699 $163,563 $19,549 $16,965 $288,070 $37,000 $8,943,106 9,499,952$ 2.4%
17 Pickering, City of - Calculated $109,300 $23,800 $93,285 $92,792 $253,171 $35,750 $8,166,201 8,774,299$ 3.6% 0.6%
18 Oshawa, City of $36,753 $18,887 $76,275 $5,799 $248,114 $8,486 $8,362,079 8,756,391$ 1.6%
19 Whitby, Town of $56,779 $14,189 $60,064 $14,051 $354,337 $35,710 $8,219,076 8,754,204$ 1.7%
20 Pickering, City of $68,088 $20,108 $93,910 $83,299 $253,171 $35,750 $8,166,201 8,720,526$ 3.0%
21 Ajax, Town of $65,841 $16,128 $110,821 $27,008 $232,254 $19,200 $7,859,159 8,330,411$ 2.6%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-5
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table A-4
Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Retail Development
(1,000 Square Metres)
Rank Municipality Site Plan Zoning By-Law
Amendment
Building
Permit Fees
Engineering
Fees
Development
Charges Total Planning Fees
Total
Planning Fees
% of Total % Increase
1 Markham, City of $43,557 $57,414 $18,080 $15,912 $906,310 $1,041,272 $100,970 9.7%
2 Vaughan, City of $36,608 $11,515 $17,680 $4,790 $858,040 $928,633 $48,123 5.2%
3 Burlington, City of $15,068 $25,419 $28,080 $19,250 $788,860 $876,677 $40,487 4.6%
4 East Gwillimbury, Town of $26,319 $21,857 $11,840 $13,750 $801,901 $875,667 $48,176 5.5%
5 Oakville, Town of $29,174 $29,674 $26,950 $16,500 $755,900 $858,198 $58,848 6.9%
6 Richmond Hill, City of $22,363 $15,791 $17,940 $28,325 $773,526 $857,945 $38,154 4.4%
7 King, Township of $18,675 $11,185 $17,000 $8,250 $794,930 $850,040 $29,860 3.5%
8 Newmarket, Town of $35,859 $25,256 $13,080 $24,750 $736,780 $835,724 $61,114 7.3%
9 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of $29,665 $28,848 $13,993 $0 $739,255 $811,760 $58,512 7.2%
10 Georgina, Town of $43,691 $20,474 $17,115 $14,850 $711,780 $807,910 $64,165 7.9%
11 Milton, Town of $10,725 $17,675 $18,610 $38,000 $716,560 $801,569 $28,399 3.5%
12 Aurora, Town of $27,814 $26,215 $16,400 $3,438 $712,840 $786,707 $54,029 6.9%
13 Halton Hills, Town of $22,498 $23,118 $17,170 $0 $717,160 $779,946 $45,616 5.8%
14 Whitby, Town of $18,424 $27,212 $25,390 $32,973 $512,148 $616,146 $45,636 7.4%
15 Mississauga, City of $28,767 $58,491 $19,320 $27,000 $429,286 $562,864 $87,258 15.5%
16 Brampton, City of $16,674 $22,616 $17,320 $0 $413,310 $469,920 $39,290 8.4%
17 Oshawa, City of $8,156 $10,702 $16,960 $4,084 $422,158 $462,060 $18,858 4.1%
18 Caledon, Town of $40,830 $23,612 $16,320 $16,500 $351,680 $448,942 $64,442 14.4%
19 Pickering, City of - Calculated $20,110 $20,993 $14,700 $36,938 $339,601 $432,342 $41,103 9.5% 2.0%
20 Pickering, City of $14,405 $18,148 $14,700 $36,938 $339,601 $423,792 $32,553 7.7%
21 Ajax, Town of $10,126 $25,671 $13,000 $17,600 $353,917 $420,314 $35,797 8.5%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-6
H:\Pickering\2022 Bill 109 Fees\Report\Pickering 2022 DAAP Update Final Report .docx
Table A-5
Development Fee Impacts Survey for an Industrial Development
(10,000 Square Metres)
Rank Municipality Site Plan Zoning By-Law
Amendment
Building
Permit Fees
Engineering
Fees
Development
Charges Total Planning Fees
Total
Planning Fees
% of Total % Increase
1 Markham, City of 155,157$ 57,414$ 147,800$ 71,712$ 4,692,600$ 5,124,682$ 212,570 4.1%
2 Vaughan, City of 49,528$ 17,545$ 124,900$ 47,900$ 4,684,100$ 4,923,973$ 67,073 1.4%
3 King, Township of 23,175$ 11,185$ 120,000$ 12,000$ 4,053,000$ 4,219,360$ 34,360 0.8%
4 Newmarket, Town of 179,995$ 25,256$ 106,200$ 36,000$ 3,471,500$ 3,818,950$ 205,250 5.4%
5 Richmond Hill, City of 22,363$ 15,791$ 164,200$ 41,200$ 3,523,463$ 3,767,016$ 38,154 1.0%
6 Mississauga, City of 54,381$ 50,540$ 144,400$ 32,500$ 3,434,558$ 3,716,379$ 104,921 2.8%
7 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of 47,665$ 28,848$ 128,090$ -$ 3,496,247$ 3,700,849$ 76,512 2.1%
8 East Gwillimbury, Town of 50,619$ 21,857$ 102,257$ 20,000$ 3,338,017$ 3,532,751$ 72,476 2.1%
9 Aurora, Town of 63,654$ 26,215$ 109,000$ 24,000$ 3,232,100$ 3,454,969$ 89,869 2.6%
10 Georgina, Town of 43,691$ 20,474$ 141,007$ 21,600$ 3,221,500$ 3,448,272$ 64,165 1.9%
11 Caledon, Town of 45,630$ 23,612$ 74,176$ 24,000$ 2,931,600$ 3,099,018$ 69,242 2.2%
12 Brampton, City of 76,524$ 32,797$ -$ -$ 2,828,000$ 2,937,321$ 109,321 3.7%
13 Oakville, Town of 89,834$ 35,434$ 172,000$ 24,000$ 2,550,730$ 2,871,998$ 125,268 4.4%
14 Ajax, Town of 18,406$ 25,671$ 90,000$ 25,600$ 2,338,998$ 2,498,675$ 44,077 1.8%
15 Pickering, City of - Calculated 47,560$ 23,720$ 110,000$ 31,000$ 2,195,838$ 2,408,118$ 71,280 3.0% 0.3%
16 Whitby, Town of 64,378$ 27,212$ 159,000$ 46,660$ 2,107,900$ 2,405,150$ 91,590 3.8%
17 Pickering, City of 44,240$ 20,605$ 110,000$ 31,000$ 2,195,838$ 2,401,683$ 64,845 2.7%
18 Burlington, City of 35,318$ 31,539$ 129,664$ 28,000$ 2,155,730$ 2,380,251$ 66,857 2.8%
19 Milton, Town of 20,179$ 30,455$ 135,300$ 46,000$ 1,745,330$ 1,977,264$ 50,634 2.6%
20 Halton Hills, Town of 45,248$ 33,144$ 120,150$ -$ 1,551,830$ 1,750,372$ 78,392 4.5%
21 Oshawa, City of 17,156$ 10,702$ 142,300$ 6,604$ 1,431,600$ 1,608,362$ 27,858 1.7%
Attachment #3 to Report PLN 47-22
Current and Proposed Site Plan Approval process
Attachment #4 to Report PLN 47-22
Current and Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment process