230125 Affordable and Attainable Housing Committee AgendaThe Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Affordable & Attainable Housing Committee Meeting
AGENDA
Wednesday, January 25, 2023
4:15 PM
Council Chambers
200 Broadway, 2nd Floor
1. Call to Order
2. Adoption of Agenda
Proposed Resolution #1
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee be adopted.
3. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
4. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
Proposed Resolution #2
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the minutes of the November 23, 2022 Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee be adopted.
5. Presentations
5.1 Oxford County Master Housing Strategy
Presented by: Rebecca Smith, Manager of Housing Development, Oxford County
6. General Business & Reports
6.1 31 Earle Street Property
6.2 United Way Oxford Transitional Housing Update
7.Next Meeting
8.Adjournment
Proposed Resolution #3
Moved By: ________________
Seconded By: ________________
THAT the Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory Committee meeting be adjourned at
____ p.m.
Page 2 of 164
Master Housing strategy
oxford CountyDecember 2022
Page 3 of 164
Oxford County pg. i
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
County of Oxford
Master Housing Strategy
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Housing Needs in Oxford County ...................................................................................... 2
3.0 Strategies to Address Housing Needs ............................................................................. 40
4.0 Recommendations and Direction ................................................................................... 54
Appendix 1: Conceptual Site Plans ............................................................................................. 57
Appendix 2: Oxford County Housing Needs Assessment ........................................................... 72
Disclaimer:
The conclusions contained in this report have been prepared based on both primary and secondary data sources. NBLC makes every
effort to ensure the data is correct but cannot guarantee its accuracy. It is also important to note that it is not possible to fully document
all factors or account for all changes that may occur in the future and influence the viability of any development. NBLC, therefore,
assumes no responsibility for losses sustained as a result of implementing any recommendation provided in this report.
This report has been prepared solely for the purposes outlined herein and is not to be relied upon, or used for any other purposes,
or by any other party without the prior written authorization from N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited.
Page 4 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 1
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
1.0 Introduction
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited (‘NBLC’) has been retained by the County of Oxford to
prepare a Master Housing Strategy that provides an understanding of housing needs across the
community and a long-term strategic plan for the delivery of affordable housing and programs.
This Master Housing Strategy is therefore intended to provide a comprehensive and outcome-
based strategy for addressing housing needs throughout the County.
The County has experienced unprecedented demand for housing in recent years that has resulted
in rising rents and home values. At the same time, the vacancy rate for rental housing is well
below balanced conditions and the wait list for community housing has never been higher. While
a variety of new affordable housing has been developed throughout the County over the past
decade, these efforts have not been sufficient to completely address the growing needs of the
community, particularly in most recent years as the real estate market has accelerated.
To support the Master Housing Strategy, the County has identified a variety of potential
development sites ranging from vacant public land, existing public housing sites, and existing
underdeveloped private and non-profit owned lands. This report provides an assessment of these
properties and identifies the sites that have the best potential to be developed/redeveloped for the
purpose of providing new affordable housing. Proforma analyses have also been prepared for the
prioritized properties, which estimates the funding commitments necessary for these properties to
be developed. Together, this analysis provides the County with an inventory of development sites
and the associated funding requirements to support future housing delivery.
In addition to ‘brick and mortar’ affordable housing development projects, the Housing Master
Plan also recommends a number of non-asset strategies such as growth management and policy
considerations, housing incentive programs, encouraging second units, and other similar strategies
to encourage specific housing outcomes that are needed in the community.
This Master Housing Strategy is therefore intended to identify and define the need for housing
throughout the County and recommend the strategies best suited to address these needs.
Page 5 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 2
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
2.0 Housing Needs in Oxford County
The following provides a comprehensive analysis of housing needs in the County of Oxford. The
analysis defines affordable housing, assesses income and socioeconomic data and forecasts,
provides an assessment of current pricing and trends in the County’s real estate market, identifies
the supply and characteristics of existing affordable housing in the County, and assesses the
characteristics of those most in need of such housing.
This analysis therefore illustrates the price and availability of housing across the County relative
to what various income groups can afford to pay and identifies the associated housing needs/gaps
observed across the Housing Continuum. This analysis is intended to identify priorities, housing
targets, and inform the County’s future decision making with regards to housing development and
programs.
The Housing Needs Assessment, as summarized in the following sections, was presented to
County Council on June 22, 2022, for information and feedback. The full analysis is included as
an appendix to this report.
Affordable Housing Definition and Incomes in Oxford County
Affordable Housing Defined: Provincial Policy Statement and Oxford County
In accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001, the County adopted a Municipal Housing Facility
By-Law (By-Law No. 4664-2006) to support the creation of new affordable rental or ownership
housing. This By-law includes a definition for both affordable rental and affordable ownership
housing, with consideration for the more general definitions that are provided in the Provincial
Policy Statement, 2020. The County’s more refined definitions are provided as follows:
Affordable Ownership Housing:
▪ Monthly mortgage costs (including mortgage principle, interest and property taxes) do not
exceed 30 percent of gross monthly household income.
▪ The purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of a resale home in
Oxford County, or a lesser amount as deemed appropriate by the Director of Human Services.
▪ Total annual household income does not exceed the 60th percentile (6th decile) income level
for Oxford County according to Statistics Canada, and/or determined by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Affordable Rental Housing:
▪ Housing where monthly rental costs (excluding utilities) do not exceed 30 percent of the
tenant’s gross monthly household income.
Page 6 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 3
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ Is rented at or below the average market rent for a rental unit in Oxford County. Average
Market Rent (‘AMR’) is determined annually by CMHC and/or the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing (MMAH).
▪ Where total household income does not exceed 60% of the median household income for
Oxford County as per Statistics Canada (currently $45,900).
Eligible Incomes for Affordable Housing:
While the County’s current definitions of affordable housing currently take this into account, in
terms of eligible incomes for Affordable Housing, it is important to note that the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2020 (PPS), more generally indicates that affordable rental and ownership housing
shall be provided to households earning below the 6th income decile, according to Statistics
Canada and/or determined by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Of note, the PPS
defines Low and Moderate-Income Households as follows:
▪ Low Income: Households earning below the 3rd income decile.
▪ Moderate Income: Households earning between the 4th and 6th income decile.
▪ High Income: Households earning in the 7th income decile and above.
Deciles are created by ranking all households in the County based on income (i.e., highest to
lowest) and sorting them into ten equal-sized groups. The 1st income decile group therefore
represents the average income of the bottom 10 percent of the income distribution (i.e., the lowest
incomes in the County). This data is provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
(MMAH) on an annual basis for all Service Managers in Ontario.
Within this context, Figure 1 illustrates where low, moderate, and high-income households fall
along the Housing Continuum.
Figure 1: The Housing Continuum
Incomes in Oxford County: Renters are Disadvantaged Relative to Owners
Table 1 and Figures 2 & 3 illustrate key income data for the County, with the following pertinent
observations:
Page 7 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 4
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ As illustrated by Table 1, the average household income in the County increased by nearly
32% between 2006 and 2016, higher than the Provincial average of 26%. Between 2016 and
2021, incomes in the County again increased by a sizeable margin, with the average being
$101,200.
▪ While average incomes are generally increasing, Figure 2 illustrates that this growth is almost
exclusively driven by growth in high-income households earning above $100,000.
▫ Those earning above $100,000 has increased from a total of 25% of households in 2011,
to 32% in 2016, and 45% as of 2021.
▫ The middle-income categories have not experienced significant change. While the
lowest income category has decreased, this does not signal that affordability challenges
are improving, as will be assessed later in this report.
▪ Table 1 further illustrates that households that own their home earn significantly more than
renters. In fact, as of 2016, owners earned more than twice as much as renter households, on
average. Figure 3 further explores this trend by illustrating the distribution of incomes for
renter and owner households.
▫ Nearly 75% of renter households earn less than $60,000, with 20% earning less than
$20,000. The inverse is true for ownership households, with 70% of households earning
more than $60,000 and 36% of households earning more than $100,000.
Table 1
Average Household Income Before
Taxes (2006 - 2016)
Year Income % Change 06 - 16
All Households
2006 $64,633
2011 $68,487
2016 $85,131 31.7%
2021* $101,200 18.9%
Owner Households
2006 $74,881
2011 $80,551
2016 $95,099 27.0%
Renter Households
2006 $38,753
2011 $39,831
2016 $46,074 18.9%
Source: CMHC Housing Portal Census - Oxford
County. *2021 data not yet available by
renters/owners, % change shown between 2016-21.
Page 8 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 5
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 2 (source: Census of Canada)
Income Deciles in Oxford County: What can Low and Moderate-Income
Households Afford to pay for Housing?
Table 2 provides the average income of decile groups for All Households and Renter Households
in the County, as provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). This
data is from the 2016 census, which is inflated using the Consumer Price Index to 2021. Revised
income data based on the 2021 census is expected to be released in 2023, subject to the amended
affordable housing definitions that are proposed through Bill 23.
▪ This data further exemplifies that owners earn significantly more than renter households
across every decile.
▪ The data also displays the maximum purchase price (based on all household incomes) and
maximum monthly rent (based on renter household incomes) that each decile group can afford
to pay for housing (considering that 30% of a households’ income would be spent on
accommodations). Renters can therefore afford a monthly rent ranging from $410, for those
in the 1st income decile, to over $2,600 for those in the highest income decile.
▪ Similarly, County households can afford to pay between $97,900 and $644,900 for a home,
assuming they are a first-time purchaser with a 5% down payment. Notwithstanding these
calculations, there are situations where a household could afford a higher purchase price, such
as:
▫ Those who already own a home and have experienced significant appreciation over time.
Page 9 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 6
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 3 (source: Census of Canada)
▫ Households who have saved a higher down payment or received assistance from family.
▫ Households with incomes higher than what is noted in Table 2, who are possibly moving
from higher-income markets such as London, Kitchener-Waterloo, and the Greater
Toronto Area, which is a trend identified by the County’s most recent Municipal
Comprehensive Review (to be assessed later in this section).
Page 10 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 7
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▫ A combination of the above and other similar situations.
▪ In addition to the affordability thresholds identified, other barriers for entry to the housing
market will include:
▫ Availability of units at these price points.
▫ Requirement for first and last month rent for rental housing, and other similar costs (e.g.,
security deposit).
▫ Adequate down payment, monthly costs (i.e., condo fees, home maintenance, etc.) and
other closing costs for the purchase of a home.
Table 2
Household Incomes in Oxford County by Decile Group and Calculated Affordability
Thresholds Based on Affordable Housing Definition
Decile
Group
All Households
Income (2021
estimate)^
Renter Income
(2021
estimate)^
Affordable
Purchase
Price*
Affordable
Rental Rate
(monthly)** Low Income 1st $26,600 $16,500 $97,900 $410
2nd $41,000 $23,100 $150,800 $580
3rd $53,600 $29,700 $197,200 $740 Moderate Income 4th $66,500 $37,800 $244,600 $950
5th $81,300 $46,000 $299,100 $1,150
6th $96,600 $54,600 $355,400 $1,370 High Income 7th $114,600 $65,600 $421,600 $1,640
8th $138,100 $81,200 $508,100 $2,030
9th $175,300 $106,700 $644,900 $2,670
Notes/Source: Provincial Policy Statement Housing Tables. ^Incomes based on 2016 Census of Canada, inflated
using Consumer Price Index (Ontario) to estimate 2021 incomes. *Assumes 30% of gross income is available for
accommodation costs. Accommodation costs include mortgage (25 years, 4.79% fixed 5-year rate, 5% down
payment, 1.25% property tax payment, 4.0% of loan amount for CMHC mortgage insurance). **Assumes 30% of
gross income is available for monthly rent.
Affordable Housing Thresholds in Oxford County
As defined in the County’s Municipal Housing Facilities By-law (MHFB), the thresholds for
affordable ownership housing in the County is the lesser of housing that is affordable to the 6th
income decile ($355,400 as identified in Table 2) or a purchase price that is at least 10% below
the average resale home in the County (or a lesser amount considering the affordability of the 6th
income decile). As of 2021, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) identified
Page 11 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 8
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
an average home resale price of $523,898 in the County, which translates to a threshold of
$473,3081 (10% below).
For rental housing, the affordable threshold is defined in the County’s MHFB as the lesser of
housing that is affordable to the 6th income decile ($1,370 per month) or the CMHC Average
Market Rent (‘AMR’). The current 2021 CMHC AMR for the County is:
▪ Bachelor: $762
▪ 1-Bedroom: $1,062
▪ 2-Bedroom: $1,280
▪ 3-Bedroom: $1,111
While the CMHC AMR uses the term ‘market rent’, these do not accurately reflect true market
rents in the community. Rather, it is an index of all rental apartments in the County, which
includes affordable housing and long-term tenants in rent-controlled buildings. It provides a
useful index to understand macro-level trends in the rental market but does not accurately identify
the asking rent of available units (i.e., the rent a household would have to pay if they were looking
to occupy a rental home today). AMR is therefore an affordable benchmark in most communities
across Ontario. Most of the County’s recent investments in affordable housing have included
units priced between 80% - 100% of the CMHC AMR.
In light of the foregoing and in accordance with the County’s current MHFB, the current
maximum affordable housing thresholds in the County are:
▪ Affordable Ownership: $425,000
▪ Affordable Rental: CMHC AMR
▫ Bachelor: $762
▫ 1-Bedroom: $1,062
▫ 2-Bedroom: $1,280
▫ 3-Bedroom: $1,111
Of note, new income data based on the 2021 census should be released in 2023, at which time
these thresholds should be reviewed appropriately.
1 This data is released by the MMAH with the decile data presented in Table 2 every year. As assessed later in this
report, the average resale price in Oxford County is now well above this threshold.
Page 12 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 9
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Ownership Housing Market
The Resale Housing Market in the County is Rapidly Accelerating with Demand
Outpacing Supply
As illustrated by Figure 4, the average resale price in Oxford County has historically increased
modestly. However, beginning in July 2017, home prices began to increase at a quicker pace.
After January 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic began March 2020), the rate of appreciation has
increased significantly.
Figure 4: Average and Median Resale Home Price in Oxford County
Source: Woodstock-Ingersoll and District Residential Market Activity and MLS® Home Price Index Report February
2022
As of February 2022,2 the average resale property in Oxford County sold for $860,500, which was
a 34% increase from February 2021 and a 92% increase from February 2020. More recent data
suggests that home prices have declined/stabilized since February, which is due to the Bank of
Canada raising interest rates at a historically quick pace3. While home prices have adjusted,
affordability remains equally challenging due to this new high interest rate environment (i.e.,
shelter/mortgage costs remain similar, despite lower home values).
At the same time, properties still appear to be selling quicker than ever before, taking only 7 days
on average to sell once listed. Historically, homes took an average of 20-70 days to sell. These
trends are also observed across all housing types, but are more pronounced for low-density homes:
Average Price (February 2022):
▪ Single-Detached: $938,795 (up 340% since 2012, 43% since last year)
2 The most recent data as of the writing of the Housing Needs Assessment.
3 October 2022 data suggests an average resale price of $713,000, which is 50% higher than the average resale price in
February 2020.
Page 13 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 10
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ Semi-Detached: $775,041 (up 279% since 2012, 40% since last year)
▪ Condo Apartment: $545,151 (up 293% since 2012, 24% since last year)
Median Days on Market (February 2022):
▪ Single-Detached: 2022 – 7 days | 2020 – 16 days | 2012 – 71 days
▪ Semi-Detached: 2022 – 7 days | 2020 – 19 days | 2012 – 52 days
▪ Condo Apartment: 2022 – 7 days | 2020 – 19 days | 2012 – 50 days
This data heavily indicates that demand is outpacing the supply of homes, with properties selling
quickly and prices rapidly increasing. Due to these conditions, the inventory of resale properties
available for sale has decreased significantly from 6 months of inventory in 2013 to less than 1
month as of 2022 (Figure 5).
Figure 5 (source: Woodstock-Ingersoll and District Residential Market Activity and MLS® Home Price Index
Report February 2022)
The Macro Housing Conditions are Generally Observed Across Oxford County’s
Local Municipalities
As illustrated by Figure 6 and 7, these macro market conditions (e.g., rapid price appreciation,
reduced supply, quick sales) are generally observed uniformly across the County.
▪ As displayed in Figure 6, while the average resale price varies across each municipality, the
average price has increased by over 30% in each community between 2021 and 2022. This
price movement is significant, is not in line with recent trends, and is not a sustainable or
desirable market outcome.
Page 14 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 11
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 6 (source: Woodstock-Ingersoll and District Residential Market Activity and MLS® Home Price Index
Report February 2022)
Figure 7 (source: Woodstock-Ingersoll and District Residential Market Activity and MLS® Home Price Index
Report February 2022)
Page 15 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 12
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ Average home prices ranged from $766,500 in Tillsonburg to nearly $1.3 million in South-
West Oxford. The difference in average pricing across each community is reflective of both
the market strength of the area as well as the housing supply characteristics (e.g., large
homes/farms/properties in rural areas).
▪ All communities also accommodate fewer than 1 month of inventory, with homes taking less
than 1 week to sell on average.
▪ While some communities do exhibit stronger market features, the affordability challenges
observed at the County level appear to be playing out similarly across all communities.
New Housing in Oxford County is Expensive and Largely Positioned Toward High-
Income Households
New homes in Oxford County (i.e., homes being sold in pre-construction phases on new
subdivisions and condominium sites) are primarily occurring in the three fully serviced urban
areas of Woodstock, Ingersoll, and Tillsonburg.
Overall, most of these homes are being offered through single-detached offerings and are
primarily large and expensive homes positioned towards the top end of the market (i.e., high-
income households). Some townhomes are offered at more affordable entry pricing; however,
these also remain out of reach for many of Oxford County’s households (see affordability gap
analysis to follow). The following displays the typical purchase price of new homes in Oxford
County, with the full survey results available in the Housing Needs Assessment provided in the
appendix of this report.
Table 3: Typical New Home Sale Values (from NBLC Survey)
Ownership Data - Woodstock, Ontario
Building Typology Average Price
1B 2B 3B
New Condominium Apartments - $578,450 $750,000
New Townhouses - $758,300 $951,389
New Single/Semi-Detached Homes - $786,683 $1,120,644
Source: Project Marketing Materials and primary survey by NBLC
Ownership Data - Tillsonburg, Ontario
Building Typology Average Price
1B 2B 3B
New Condominium Apartments - - -
New Townhouses - $673,333 $756,429
New Single/Semi-Detached Homes - - $1,100,000
Source: Project Marketing Materials and primary survey by NBLC
Page 16 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 13
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Ownership Data - Ingersoll, Ontario
Building Typology Average Price
1B 2B 3B
New Condominium Apartments - - -
New Condominium Townhouses - $579,900 $689,000
New Single/Semi-Detached Homes - $605,729 $730,729
Source: Project Marketing Materials and primary survey by NBLC
Rental Housing Market
CMHC provides rental market data for the three urban areas of Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and
Ingersoll. While we have attempted to source data in other communities, the vast majority of the
County’s rental housing stock is in these three communities, being that they are fully serviced.
The Rental Market in Oxford County is Tightening and Becoming more Expensive
Every Year
Figures 8-10 to follow illustrate the average market rent and vacancy rate in each municipality
over time. Like the ownership market, price appreciation in the rental market has historically
been modest (~2-3% annual appreciation). However, since roughly 2012, rents began to increase
more rapidly (~5-6% annual appreciation).
At the same time, vacancy in all three urban municipalities has been steadily decreasing. The
vacancy rate is currently 1.4%, 2.4%, and 1.3% in Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and Ingersoll,
respectively. According to relevant CMHC data, there appears to have been no vacant rental units
available in Ingersoll since 2018 (as identified by CMHC survey).
In all three municipalities, the vacancy rate is currently well below 4% (considered balanced
conditions) and has been below 3% since 2015. A low vacancy rate creates tight conditions in
the rental market and indicates that the supply of housing is not sufficiently meeting demand.
These conditions negatively impact affordability by:
▪ Allowing landlords to increase rents well beyond inflation as a unit becomes available,
causing the rental supply to become more expensive.
▪ Reduces the availability of housing for those seeking a rental apartment, which can erode the
economic competitiveness of the municipalities as new residents and workers are unable to
find suitable housing.
▪ As ownership housing becomes more expensive, greater demand will shift from ‘would-be’
purchasers to the rental market as these moderate and high-income households cannot afford
to buy.
Page 17 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 14
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ Without increased rental supply, landlords are incented to renovate rental units and target
higher income households. This erodes the supply of older rental units, which have
historically been available to low and moderate income households.
Figure 8 (source: Created by NBLC with CMHC Data)
Figure 9 (source: Created by NBLC with CMHC Data)
Page 18 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 15
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 10 (source: Created by NBLC with CMHC Data)
The Supply of Rental Housing has been Largely Static in Oxford County
The rental apartment universe has increased measurably in Woodstock, growing by approximately
830 rental apartments between 1990 and 2021 (most of this growth has occurred over the past five
years). Conversely, the rental apartment universe in Tillsonburg and Ingersoll has been relatively
static over time. These figures include the total net change in rental apartments as reported by
CMHC and include the addition of rental homes, as well as rental homes that have been removed
from apartment universe (i.e. converted to condominium, buildings demolished and replaced with
new rental units, basement apartments being removed, etc.).
Most of the growth in rental apartments since 1990 has been one-bedroom units, followed by two-
bedroom units. The supply of three-bedroom units have decreased over this period.
The rental market is therefore characterized as very tight (i.e., limited vacancy) with eroding
affordability (i.e., increasing rents). While Woodstock has expanded the rental apartment supply,
vacancy remains low with rents continuing to increase, indicating supply is not meeting demand.
Page 19 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 16
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 11 (source: Created by NBLC with CMHC Data)
Figure 12 (source: Created by NBLC with CMHC Data)
Page 20 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 17
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 13 (source: Created by NBLC with CMHC Data)
CMHC Average Market Rent vs ‘Actual’ Market Rent
As noted, the CMHC Average Market Rent (AMR) does not reflect the actual market rent a
household would pay for a newly advertised rental unit. Rather, it represents an affordability
benchmark and is currently the maximum rent that can be charged to qualify as affordable housing
in the County. The County’s recent investments in affordable housing have typically been at 80%
- 100% of the CMHC AMR, which are shown below in Table 4.
Table 4
Oxford County Average Market Rent 2021 (Apartments)
Bedroom Type CMHC Average
Market Rent (AMR) 80% CMHC AMR
Bachelor $762 $610
One-Bedroom $1,062 $850
Two-Bedroom $1,280 $1,024
Three-Bedroom $1,111 $889
Total Average $1,157 $926
Source: MMAH
To understand the actual market rent in these communities, we have completed a survey of the
rental market. The following Tables represent the findings of our survey, with the full results
available in the appendix. Unsurprisingly, the market rents in each community are well above the
AMRs noted in Table 4.
Page 21 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 18
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Table 5
Rental Data – Woodstock, Ontario
Building Typology Average Rent
1B 2B 3B
New Purpose-Built Rental Apartments $1,409 $1,802 $1,910
Old Purpose-Built Rental Apartments $1,298 $1,632 $2,393
New Rental Townhouses $1,856 $2,153 $2,498
Old Rental Townhouses - $1,609 $1,738
Basement Apartments $1,288 $1,700 -
Single/Semi-Detached Homes $2,000 $2,350 $3,025
Source: Project Marketing Materials and NBLC primary survey
Rental Data – Tillsonburg, Ontario
Building Typology Average Rent
1B 2B 3B
New Purpose-Built Rental Apartments $1,469 $1,790 $2,000
Old Purpose-Built Rental Apartments $1,169 $1,349 $1,421
New Rental Townhouses - $2,250 $2,674
Old Rental Townhouses - $1,700 $2,150
Basement Apartments $1,450 - -
Single/Semi-Detached Homes - $2,500 $2,848
Source: Project Marketing Materials and NBLC primary survey
Rental Data – Ingersoll, Ontario
Building Typology Average Rent
1B 2B 3B
New Purpose-Built Rental Apartments - - -
Old Purpose-Built Rental Apartments $1,148 $1,295 $1,500
New Rental Townhouses - - -
Old Rental Townhouses - $1,425 $1,655
Basement Apartments $1,600 $1,950 -
Single/Semi-Detached Homes - $2,550 $2,800
Source: Project Marketing Materials and NBLC primary survey
Affordable Rental Housing Supply in Oxford County
Table 6 identifies the current supply of affordable housing in the County, which is comprised of
Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, Supportive Housing, Social Housing at Rent-Geared-
to-Income (‘RGI’), and Affordable Housing at 80%-100% of the CMHC AMR.
Page 22 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 19
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Table 6
Current Affordable Housing and Non-Market Housing supply in
Oxford County
Housing Type Supply
Supportive Housing 160
Social Housing (RGI – including County owned, non-
profit owned, and rent supplements) 1,429
Affordable Housing (AMR) 517
Source: Oxford County
Social Housing Wait List is Growing with Concentrated Demand
There are currently approximately 2,400 households on the County’s wait list for RGI housing.
This has been steadily growing over the past decade as affordability and growth pressures
continue. This wait list represents County and non-profit asset data, as wait list data is currently
not maintained for the non-RGI affordable housing stock with most of these projects owned by
private organizations.
As illustrated by Figure 14, most households are seeking housing in Woodstock (69%), with
almost all of the wait list concentrated in the three urban municipalities (driven by the fact that
this is where the majority of RGI housing is located).
Figure 14 (source Oxford County)
Woodstock
69%
Ingersoll
14%
Tillsonburg
13%
Rural
Municipalities
4%
RGI WAIT LIST BY LOCATION
Page 23 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 20
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Of note, nearly 62% of the wait list is seeking a one-bedroom / bachelor unit. Less than 6% are
seeking large family sized homes over 4-bedrooms. Nearly half of the wait list is also households
aged 25-45, with seniors representing only 16% of households seeking RGI housing.
Figure 15 (source Oxford County)
The above representation is not surprising, as it is common that demand for low-income RGI
housing is heavily dominated by young singles and seniors seeking a one-bedroom unit. While
a wait list is not maintained for the affordable (AMR) housing stock, our work often finds that
bachelor
15%
1br
46%
2br
19%
3br
14%
4br
5%
5br
1%
RGI WAIT LIST BY BEDROOM TYPE
18-24
9%
25-45
48%
46-65
27%
65+
16%
AGE OF HOUSEHOLDS ON THE RGI WAIT LIST
Page 24 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 21
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
demand for moderately affordable housing tends to be more balanced across housing types (e.g.,
1 – 4-bedroom homes) as a broader range of households require affordable rental housing,
particularly as affordability in the private market erodes.
Investment in Affordable Housing Since 2007 Has Been Positive but Insufficient to
Address Demand
Since 2007, County Council has approved a total of 30 affordable housing projects totaling 710
total rental units and including 568 affordable units. These projects were made possible through
a funding commitment of $23.5M from the Federal and Provincial government and an additional
$10.7M in County funding (excluding the value of development charge exemptions). It should
be noted that this total does not include home ownership or secondary unit assistance.
Key characteristics of this new affordable housing supply includes:
▪ The depth of affordability has typically ranged between 80% and 100% of the CMHC AMR
and has occurred through local private and non-profit housing providers. All projects are
affordable rental aside from a Habitat for Humanity project in Blandford-Blenheim (2 semi-
detached affordable ownership units).
▪ Affordable projects have been a mix of apartments, stacked townhomes, townhomes, and
other single-family formats.
▪ 86% of the affordable units constructed in Oxford County since 2007 have been in the three
urban municipalities.
▪ One-bedroom units have been the most prevalent affordable housing unit delivered, followed
by two-bedroom suites. Bachelor and three-bedroom units have represented a small
proportion of new activity. A reflection of the above, singles and seniors (typically requiring
one-bedroom units) have been the primary tenant targeted through new projects. Projects
targeted specifically to seniors have represented over 40% of all new affordable housing
supply, despite this group representing only 16% of the wait list.
▪ Just over 6% of all new affordable units have been accessible. Some new projects have
incorporated social support and services.
▪ Parking has been provided at each development typically at a ratio of 1 to 2 spaces per unit.
Some projects in more urban settings have proceeded with no or limited parking.
In addition to this affordable housing supply, a total of 171 families in Oxford County have
received down payment assistance loans through the Home Ownership Program to a total of
$1,977,005. This will be explored in more detail later in this report. Despite these investments,
vacancy in the private rental market remains at historically low levels and the wait list for social
housing continues to grow. Demand is therefore outpacing supply across the rental continuum.
Page 25 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 22
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 16 (source Oxford County)
Page 26 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 23
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Growth Trends and Forecasts
The following data and analysis is taken from the County’s Phase One Comprehensive Review
prepared by Hemson Consulting Limited in March 2020.
Oxford County has Experienced Strong Growth in Recent Years that is Expected
to Continue Looking Forward
Oxford County has experienced growth since 2001, which has been accelerating since 2011
(Table 7). While population growth between 2001-2006 and 2006-2011 was 3% and 2%
respectively, growth accelerated to 5% between 2011-2016 and almost 7% between 2016-2021
(the 2021 census, released after Hemson’s report, estimates the County’s population to be
121,781).
Most of this growth between 2001 and 2016 (96%) has occurred in the three urban areas of
Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and Ingersoll. Woodstock has accommodated 64% of total population
growth in the County over this period.
Mobility data from the County’s Municipal Comprehensive Review indicates that growth is being
driven primarily by migrants from other communities in Ontario, particularly the GTA, London,
and Kitchener-Waterloo. This trend has likely only continued as work from home practices have
allowed households in higher priced markets to pursue lower cost family homes in markets such
as Oxford County. This finding is also supported by the migrant data in Figure 17 that illustrates
aside from university age individuals, Oxford County successfully attracts all other age groups,
particularly seniors and families seeking more affordable low-density housing.
Table 7
Oxford County Population Growth by Local Municipality
Area
Municipality 2001 2006 2011 2016 2001 –
2016
Share of
Growth
2001-2016
Woodstock 35,160 37,360 38,810 42,040 6,880 64%
Tillsonburg 14,610 15,370 15,730 16,310 1,700 16%
Ingersoll 11,410 12,190 12,490 13,110 1,700 16%
Blandford-
Blenheim 7,500 7,200 7,560 7,600 100 1%
East Zorra-
Tavistock 7,170 7,270 7,030 7,330 160 1%
Norwich 10,890 10,870 11,020 11,310 420 4%
SW Oxford 8,090 7,870 7,750 7,880 -210 -2%
Zorra 8,370 8,420 8,280 8,360 -10 0%
Oxford County 103,200 106,550 108,670 113,940 10,740 100%
Source: Hemson Consulting Oxford County Municipal Comprehensive Review
Page 27 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 24
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 17: Age Structure of Migrants, Oxford County, 2006-2018 (annual)
Source: Hemson Consulting Limited, prepared for the County’s MCR
Looing forward to 2046 (Figure 18), Hemson is forecasting that growth in Oxford County will
continue to accelerate, with growth outpacing historical trends (i.e., be more in line with growth
patterns observed between 2011 and 2021).
Figure 18: Forecasted Population Growth, Oxford County, 1991-2046.
Page 28 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 25
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Forecasted Housing Types Will Continue to Focus on Low-Density Housing
Between 2001 and 2016, housing supply in Oxford County has largely been dominated by single
and semi-detached homes (~70%), with apartments representing around 20% of all housing
completions, and townhomes less than 10%.
As illustrated by Figure 19, it is largely expected that this composition will continue looking
forward, with Oxford County remaining an important generator of family-oriented housing types
at more affordable pricing relative to the GTA and other nearby municipalities (e.g., London,
Waterloo).
Hemson forecasts that townhomes will become more popular over the forecast period as the
market responds to various market and planning changes (e.g., land price increases, more efficient
building form, higher density growth targets, providing more affordable homes relative to larger
single-detached lots, etc.). Apartments are expected to remain around 20% of housing growth
looking forward.
Figure 19: Share of Housing Growth by Unit Type, Oxford County, 2001-2016 vs Forecasted 2016-2046
As illustrated by Table 8, housing types are forecasted to vary across the local municipalities.
While single-family homes are expected to be the primary housing typology in each community
broadly, apartments are projected to be most common in Woodstock, followed by Tillsonburg and
Ingersoll. Modest apartment activity is expected in other areas of the County.
Page 29 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 26
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Like the forecasted population growth, housing growth is expected to be concentrated in
Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and Ingersoll, with Woodstock accommodating over 50% of all housing
supply delivered in the County to 2046.
Through this Comprehensive Review, Oxford County is contemplating the land supply available
for residential development to meet this forecasted demand.
Table 8
Oxford County Housing Growth by Type for each Local Municipality (2016-2046)
Area Municipality Single Semi Row Apartment Total Average
per Year
Woodstock 4,270 1,260 1,900 1,930 9,360 312
Tillsonburg 1,600 50 210 550 2,410 80
Ingersoll 1,300 200 220 540 2,260 75
Blandford-Blenheim 580 20 90 70 760 25
East Zorra-Tavistock 890 50 220 140 1,300 43
Norwich 670 20 130 240 1,060 35
SW Oxford 450 20 20 30 520 17
Zorra 500 10 30 90 630 21
Oxford County 10,260 1,630 2,820 3,590 18,300 610
Source: Hemson Consulting Oxford County Municipal Comprehensive Review
Affordability Gap Analysis
Tables 9 – 11 to follow present the income deciles (by tenure) and affordability thresholds of each
decile group demonstrated earlier in this report (Table 2). It also illustrates the typical price/rent
of housing options in Oxford County as presented in this report.
A red square indicates that the home is not affordable to that decile group, whereas a green square
indicates the home is affordable. The following are key findings from the analysis:
▪ Most new ownership homes are unaffordable to households below the 9th income decile. This
is not surprising given the rapid appreciation observed in the resale market in recent years,
the focus on high-end new homes, and migration/socioeconomic shifts since 2016.
▪ Most rental homes are unaffordable to those below the 8th income decile. A select number of
older and lower-quality one-bedroom apartments in the County could be affordable to those
in the 6th income decile, however these are in short supply and may not be suitable to the
needs of every household (e.g., family, single parent).
▪ Also of note, 100% of the CMHC AMR is only affordable to renter households above the 5th
/ 6th income decile, whereas 80% of the CMHC AMR is affordable to groups in the 4th income
decile. RGI housing would be affordable to all households.
Page 30 of 164
County of Oxford pg. 27
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▫ The above is important when selecting an affordability target for any new housing
program or development. While the County’s recent affordable housing supply has been
provided at 80% of the CMHC AMR, there is also demand for housing above and below
this threshold, as indicated by the growing wait list for social housing.
Page 31 of 164
Oxford County pg. 28
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Table 9
Ownership Housing Affordability Gap Analysis
Income Decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Affordability Threshold $97,900 $150,800 $197,200 $244,600 $299,100 $355,400 $421,600 $508,100 $644,900
Housing Type Purchase Price
Average Resale Price
Blandford-Blenheim $1,005,000
East Zorra Tavistock $828,000
Ingersoll $832,746
Norwich $972,780
SW Oxford $1,283,463
Woodstock $791,235
Zorra $1,030,911
Tillsonburg $766,625
Oxford County $845,936
Average New Sale Price – Woodstock
Single-Family New (High) $1,120,644
Single-Family New (Low) $786,683
Condo Apartment New 2BR $578,450
Condo Apartment New 3BR $750,000
Townhouse New 2BR $758,300
Townhouse New 2BR $951,389
Average New Sale Price – Tillsonburg
Single-Family New $1,100,000
Condo Apartment New 2BR Data Unavailable
Condo Apartment New 3BR Data Unavailable
Townhouse New 2BR $673,333
Townhouse New 2BR $756,429
Average New Sale Price – Ingersoll
Single-Family New (High) $760,141
Single-Family New (Low) $659,060
Condo Apartment New 2BR Data Unavailable
Condo Apartment New 3BR Data Unavailable
Townhouse New 2BR $579,900
Townhouse New 2BR $689,000
UnaffordableAffordablePage 32 of 164
Oxford County pg. 29
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Table 10
Rental Housing Affordability Gap Analysis
Income Decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Affordability Threshold $410 $580 $740 $950 $1,150 $1,370 $1,640 $2,030 $2,670
Housing Type Monthly Rental Rate
WOODSTOCK
New Apartment 1BR $1,409
New Apartment 2BR $1,802
New Apartment 3BR $1,910
Older Apartment 1BR $1,298
Older Apartment 2BR $1,632
Older Apartment 3BR $2,393
New Townhome 1BR $1,856
New Townhome 2BR $2,153
New Townhome 3BR $2,498
Older Townhome 2BR $1,609
Older Townhome 3BR $1,738
Basement Apartment 1BR $1,288
Basement Apartment 2BR $1,700
Single/Semi-Detached 2BR $2,350
Single/Semi-Detached 3BR $3,025
TILLSONBURG
New Apartment 1BR $1,469
New Apartment 2BR $1,790
New Apartment 3BR $2,000
Older Apartment 1BR $1,169
Older Apartment 2BR $1,349
Older Apartment 3BR $1,421
New Townhome 2BR $2,250
New Townhome 3BR $2,674
Older Townhome 2BR $1,700
Older Townhome 3BR $2,150
Basement Apartment 1BR $1,450
Market Single/Semi-Detached 2BR $2,500
Market Single/Semi-Detached 3BR $2,850
INGERSOLL
Older Apartment 1BR $1,148
Older Apartment 2BR $1,295
Older Apartment 3BR $1,500
Older Townhome 2BR $1,425
Older Townhome 3BR $1,655
Basement Apartment 1BR $1,600
Basement Apartment 2BR $1,950
Market Single/Semi-Detached 2BR $2,550 UnaffordableAffordablePage 33 of 164
Oxford County pg. 30
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Table 11
Rental Housing Affordability Gap Analysis
Income Decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Affordability Threshold $410 $580 $740 $950 $1,150 $1,370 $1,640 $2,030 $2,670
Housing Type Monthly Rental Rate
CMHC Average Market Rent
80% CMHC AMR 1BR $850
80% CMHC AMR 2BR $1,024
80% CMHC AMR 3BR $889
CMHC AMR 1BR $1,062
CMHC AMR 2BR $1,280
CMHC AMR 3BR $1,111
Unaffordable
Affordable
Page 34 of 164
Oxford County pg. 31
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Characteristics of Households in Need of Affordable Housing (Core
Housing Need)
While the social housing wait list data presented in Section 2.3 of this report provides an indication
of the demand characteristics of those looking for RGI housing, CMHC has conducted a more
detailed and broad assessment of those in need of affordable housing. Utilizing census data,
CMHC identified households noted as being in Core Housing Need. A household is in Core
Housing Need if it does not meet one or more standard for housing:
▪ Affordability: Household is spending more than 30% of before-tax household income.
▪ Adequacy: Home requires major repairs.
▪ Suitability: Home size is not adequate to the household size (i.e. family of 5 living in a 2-
bedroom home).
Adequate housing does not require any major repairs, according to residents. Suitable housing has
enough bedrooms for the size and make-up of resident households. Affordable housing costs less
than 30 per cent of before-tax household income.
In addition to providing the total count and proportion of households experiencing Core Housing
Need, CMHC provides specific data points to help identify the characteristics and socioeconomic
indicators of these households.
The following provides an overview of this data to help Oxford County understand the needs of
those experiencing affordability challenges. All data comes from the Canadian Census and
CMHC Housing Portal. Data is available for only Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and Ingersoll.
Renters are Far More Likely to be in Core Housing Need than Owners, with
Affordability Being the Primary Standard Impacting Results
The CMHC data provides several interesting findings as illustrated by Figure 20 and 21 to follow:
▪ Households in Core Housing Need have mostly been increasing every census period since
2006. In Woodstock, the number of households in Core Housing Need decreased between
2011 and 2016, though given eroding affordability in both the rental and ownership market
since this time, it is likely that Core Housing Need has accelerated in Woodstock when the
2021 (updated data is expected to be released next year).
▪ There are significantly more renter households in Core Housing Need than owners. In the
three municipalities, core housing need for renters ranged from 26% - 30% of households,
compared to only 3% - 4% of owner households.
Page 35 of 164
Oxford County pg. 32
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ Ownership households in Core Housing Need has been stable between 2006 and 2016,
whereas rental households in Core Housing Need have increased significantly (corresponding
with higher rents and low vacancy/availability).
▪ The situation in Oxford County is similar to the province at large, where renter households
face larger affordability challenges relative to owner households.
▪ Looking more closely at the standard resulting in a household being in Core Housing Need
(Figure 21):
▫ Affordability is the most common factor leading a household to be in Core Housing
Need for both owners and renters, however the proportion is much higher for renter
households.
▫ Owners are also more likely to spend over 30% of their gross household income on a
home to “enter the market”, believing that their equity commitment will pay off down
the road.
▫ Adequacy and Suitability are also significant contributors for renter households being
in Core Housing Need. In fact, 0% of the surveyed renter households in core housing
need indicate that affordability is the only challenge. This means that households are
not only spending too much on housing costs, but also the home is either not suitable or
adequate for their needs.
▫ The presence of older apartment buildings often leads to higher proportions of adequacy
and suitability concerns, which are common in all three municipalities, but more
prevalent in Ingersoll and Tillsonburg, whereas Woodstock has experienced new rental
investment in recent years.
▪ This data therefore confirms that renter households are facing significant affordability
challenges and also challenged to find a home that is appropriate to their needs. Relative to
owner households, the rental market faces more significant challenges in meeting demand,
which is also confirmed by the market data presented earlier (e.g., lengthy wait list for
affordable housing, low vacancy, modest new investment, rapidly rising rents, etc.).
Vulnerable Households Most Likely to be in Core Housing Need
CMHC also provides the characteristics of households that in Core Housing Need, which are
displayed in Table 12. Key findings from this data include:
▪ Like the overall Core Housing Need data suggests, renter households have a much higher
incidence of Core Housing Need across all characteristics. Key renter groups that have a high
incidence of Core Housing Need include:
Page 36 of 164
Oxford County pg. 33
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 20 (source CMHC)
Page 37 of 164
Oxford County pg. 34
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Figure 21 (source CMHC)
Page 38 of 164
Oxford County pg. 35
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Table 12
Households in Core Housing Need by Household Characteristics (2016)
Municipality Woodstock Ingersoll Tillsonburg
Tenure Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
Total - % Households in Core Housing
Need 3% 26% 3% 29% 4% 30%
Age of Primary Household Maintainer
15 to 24 years 6% 24% 0% 24% 0% 31%
25 to 34 years 1% 22% 2% 18% 4% 27%
35 to 44 years 2% 24% 0% 25% 2% 24%
45 to 54 years 3% 23% 2% 32% 2% 20%
55 to 64 years 5% 27% 4% 29% 6% 28%
65 years and over 4% 31% 5% 41% 4% 39%
Couple with children 1% 8% 0% 7% 1% 10%
Couple without children 2% 12% 2% 18% 1% 8%
Lone-parent household 8% 43% 5% 40% 9% 35%
One-person household 7% 33% 9% 39% 12% 42%
Household has at least one senior (65 or
older) 4% 31% 5% 42% 4% 37%
Household has at least one child less than
18 years old 3% 27% 1% 23% 2% 28%
Non-immigrant 3% 26% 3% 28% 4% 30%
Immigrant 5% 25% 4% 39% 4% 24%
Recent immigrants (landed 2011-2016) 0% 30% - - - -
Household has at least one person with
activity limitations 4% 31% 4% 34% 5% 34%
Aboriginal households 0% 17% 0% 36% 0% 35%
Source: CMHC Housing Portal Core Housing Need Analysis for Woodstock, Ingersoll, Tillsonburg. Red indicates variable is
5% above overall average for tenure.
▫ Older households (65 and over) and households with at least one-senior. While seniors
represent a higher proportion of Core Housing Need, most renter households regardless
of age have a high incidence of being Core Housing Need.
▫ Lone-parent and one-person households.
▫ Immigrants and recent immigrants.
Page 39 of 164
Oxford County pg. 36
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▫ Households with activity limitations.
▪ While certain owner groups will also face affordability challenges (e.g., lone parents, one-
person households), many owner households will sacrifice affordability for future equity
gains in the home. Given that affordability is the most common standard leading to an owner
household being in Core Housing Need, it is not surprising to see single income groups facing
the largest challenges.
▪ The data clearly identifies a larger need to address renter households across a variety of
incomes and characteristics.
Key Findings
The data indicates that much of the housing in Oxford County is unaffordable to many households
in the municipality.
For ownership housing, population growth has accelerated (including high-income individuals
from other parts of Ontario moving to Oxford County), which is driving up prices and competition
for a limited supply of housing. As home prices rise, existing owners are also likely using this
equity growth to move to a larger and/or more expensive home. Other macro factors are also
causing home prices to rise (sustained low interest rates over many years, strengthening demand,
insufficient housing supply across Southern Ontario4, financialization of housing, and others).
Overall, the supply of housing is not meeting demand, evidenced by rapid price escalation, quick
sales, and reduced overall inventory.
Relevant key findings for the ownership market include:
▪ Oxford County is rapidly growing and expected to continue to grow looking forward. Overall,
it appears that this growth, and corresponding demand for housing, is outpacing housing
supply. The focus of growth is expected to follow historical trends and concentrate in the
three urban municipalities and primarily through low-density forms.
▪ Given that new housing development has largely focused on large and expensive homes
targeting the high-end of the market, this trend does not present an optimistic view of
improving affordability conditions for low and moderate-income households.
▪ These conditions are resulting in home prices accelerating at quicker pace than incomes. As
a result, there are significant supply/demand gaps observed in the ownership market. For
households entering the market as first-time buyers, it is likely they will struggle to afford a
home.
4 https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/blog/2022/canadas-housing-supply-shortage-restoring-affordability-2030
Page 40 of 164
Oxford County pg. 37
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ Eroding affordability in the ownership market will impact the desirability and economic
competitiveness of the County. It will also push more ‘would-be’ purchasers into an already
tight rental market, causing affordability and availability in the rental market to continue to
worsen.
▪ It is imperative, through the ongoing Official Plan Review, that adequate land supply is made
available for future development to keep pace with population growth and housing demand.
▪ The best option for addressing ownership housing affordability is to ensure that realistic
housing forecasts are developed, and enough land is made available to allow developers to
keep pace with demand. It is equally important that a diverse range of housing, including
smaller and more compact housing forms that are affordable to a broader range of households
(e.g. compact townhomes, condominium apartments, tiny homes, etc.) are delivered. This
should be carefully considered through the ongoing Municipal Comprehensive Review and
Official Plan review.
▪ Other demand side measures, such as the County’s Home Ownership Program can also play
a role in addressing these housing gaps, which will be explored in more detail in the next
section of this report.
▪ If the market feasibility of new condominium apartments is challenged, incentives through a
community improvement plan could help offset these financial/market hurdles.
▪ The County can also partner with non-profit affordable ownership groups (e.g. Options for
Homes, Habitat for Humanity) to deliver housing below market rates to qualifying
households.
Relative to owners, renters are facing more significant affordability challenges. Outside of a
bachelor/1-bedroom apartments, rental apartments and rental single-family homes are
unaffordable to roughly 70% of all rental households in the County. Unlike owners, most renters
will overpay for housing, due to lack of choice, without any potential corresponding benefit. They
are also likely to overpay for housing that is unsuitable and/or inadequate to their needs.
Relevant key findings for the rental market include:
▪ Renters earn significantly less than owners, on average, and across all decile groups. Their
incomes are also growing at a slower pace than ownership households.
▪ Market rents continue to increase while vacancy shrinks across the County, indicating supply
is falling well short of demand. At the same time, the RGI wait list continues to grow and
there is virtually no availability in the affordable housing stock constructed over the past
decade.
▪ Lack of choice and supply are two key factors driving rental housing unaffordability, which
is unlikely to improve without the introduction of new market and affordable rental supply.
Page 41 of 164
Oxford County pg. 38
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ It is expected that demand for rental housing will continue to increase as the population grows
and ownership housing remains out of reach for many households. Without increased supply,
rental rates will continue to rise, and vacancy will remain low. This will continue to erode the
availability of traditionally affordable rental housing to those with lower/moderate incomes.
▪ It is therefore imperative that the County encourage the delivery of new rental housing. New
rental housing will provide more choice and availability in the market. It will also allow those
currently living in “older” rental units but have the income to rent a higher quality unit (if one
was available) to do so. This is referred to as the “Filtering Process”, freeing up an older unit
at lower rent to a lower income household.
▪ New market-rate rental housing can be encouraged through a variety of strategies including
incentive programs, encouraging the creation of second units, and including market and
affordable units together through any new affordable housing / mixed-income development.
▪ In addition to market rental supply, new RGI housing is also needed to address the lengthy
wait list that is currently over 2,400 households. Demand for new RGI housing is heavily
dominated by smaller units (bachelor and 1-bedroom) and 84% of the waitlist is made up of
those under the age of 65. County efforts should therefore be focused on one-bedroom RGI
units for non-seniors.
▪ New affordable housing (AMR) is also drastically needed. This housing provides a segment
of the housing continuum in-between RGI and market housing.
▫ Virtually all of the County’s affordable housing projects over the past decade have
provided rents at 80% of the CMHC AMR. As illustrated in this report, 80% of CMHC
AMR is affordable to only those in the 4th and 5th income deciles. Those falling below
this threshold will either be forced to pay more than 30% of their household income on
shelter costs or join the lengthy wait list for RGI housing (if they qualify). In addition,
those falling above the 5th income decile, in the moderate-income threshold, would also
face challenges in terms of affordability. Most of the recent investment in affordable
housing has focused on one-bedroom units and senior households.
▫ However, the results of this work indicate that a broader range of affordable housing
should be considered (i.e. 40%-80% AMR, 80%-100% AMR, as well as RGI).
▫ New affordable (AMR) housing development should also target a wider range of
households. While there is an identified need for affordable seniors housing, there is
also significant need for other groups, specifically singles, young households, single-
parent families, recent immigrants, those with activity limitations, those facing mental
health challenges, immigrants, and others. A broader suite mix including one, two, and
three-bedroom units should be included in these projects.
Page 42 of 164
Oxford County pg. 39
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ New multi-residential affordable housing development should be focused in the three urban
municipalities where access to services and day-to-day needs, infrastructure servicing, transit,
and other similar factors are readily available. These areas are also expected to experience
the largest growth pressures looking forward. Other strategies are appropriate in other
locations, as discussed in the following section of this report.
Page 43 of 164
Oxford County pg. 40
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
3.0 Strategies to Address Housing Needs
The following explores strategies to address the housing needs identified in Section 2 of this
report. The identified strategies fall into two general categories:
▪ Housing Development Through the Identification of Priority Projects: The development of
new affordable housing on identified public and privately owned lands in the County.
▪ Non-Asset Housing Strategies: Other tools, programs, and policies to encourage affordable
housing such as incentives, growth management and policy considerations, second unit
programs, and others.
Housing Development Through the Identification of Priority Projects
Oxford County provided a list of 30 properties to NBLC, including a variety of properties owned
by the County and Local Municipalities, non-profits, and existing private housing providers.
These properties were then evaluated and ranked for their ability to provide affordable housing
using a weighted range of seven criteria. The final ranking was then refined in consultation with
County staff.
The 10 highest ranking properties were identified as the priority projects. NBLC completed
planning analyses to develop a conceptual site plan for each property to estimate the achievable
built-form, number of units, site layout and parking provision, and overall development statistics.
An order of magnitude proforma analysis was then completed for each property to understand the
capital cost of building the project, the cash flow and debt financing capacity, and the overall
funding requirement for each project to be implemented.
The affordable housing component included in each property ranges from 80% to 100% of the
CMHC AMR, including mixed-income scenarios that include a proportion of units at market rent.
The characteristics of the housing supply for each property was informed by the findings of the
Housing Needs Assessment.
This analysis is intended to provide the County with a list of priority sites to guide future
investments in affordable housing over the next decade, along with an understanding of the
funding considerations necessary for the developments to advance.
Relative to recent years, funding requirements have increased due to the combination of rising
interest rates and construction costs. Rising interest rates have the combined impact of increasing
financing costs while also reducing the amount of debt that can be secured through the project’s
cash flow (Figure 22). As debt capacity is reduced, the outstanding capital contribution (i.e.,
funding) increases. Rising construction costs contribute to higher project costs.
Page 44 of 164
Oxford County pg. 41
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Together, these impacts result in higher project costs and lower debt capacity, requiring greater
funding for projects to advance.
Figure 22: Affordable Rental Housing Economics
Property Evaluation Criteria
The site evaluation criteria and scoring are summarized below under seven categories with a
maximum attainable score of 33. They have been developed to demote site traits that would
inhibit site development and promote those which improve feasibility from a time and cost
perspective.
▪ Servicing Capacity
▫ 0 – No access to municipal water or sanitary servicing;
▫ 1 – Private Septic and municipal water servicing;
▫ 2 – Municipal water and sanitary servicing but limited capacity;
▫ 5 – Full access to municipal water and sanitary servicing;
▪ Developable Area/ Ability to Provide Lower Cost Surface Parking
▫ 0 – Site area of less than 0.5 acres (0.20 ha);
▫ 1 – Site area of between 0.5 and 0.99 acres (0.20 to 0.40 ha);
▫ 3 – Site area of between 1.0 and 1.49 acres (0.40 to 0.60 ha);
▫ 5 – Site area of greater than 1.5 acres (0.60 ha);
$10 Million
Project Costs
Will increase as
construction costs
rise
Rental
Revenue: $
-
Operating
Costs: $
=
Net Operating
Income (NOI)
NOI Can
Support a Loan
of
$6 Million
Will decrease as
interest rates rise
Outstanding
Capital (subsidy
amount)
$4 Million
Page 45 of 164
Oxford County pg. 42
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ Ease of Approvals
▫ 0 – Site possesses an environmental constraint (e.g., contamination, slope, floodplain
etc.);
▫ 1 – Site requires an Official Plan Amendment approval;
▫ 3 – Site conforms with Official Plan policies but requires rezoning approval;
▫ 4 – Site conforms with Official Plan and Zoning By-law but requires minor variance
approval;
▫ 5 – Site is zoned appropriately;
▪ Ownership/ Control
▫ 1 – Site is privately owned (minimal County control);
▫ 2 – Site is owned by lower tier municipality but not identified by staff or Council as
being appropriate for housing;
▫ 3 – Site is owned by a non-profit or cooperative;
▫ 4 – Site is owned by lower tier municipality and staff/ Council have agreed that it could
be appropriate for housing;
▫ 5 – Site is owned by the County;
▪ Existing Tenant Disruption
▫ 1 – Impacted building contains less than 30 units;
▫ 2 – Impacted building contains between 10 and 29 units;
▫ 3 – Impacted building contains between 1 and 9 units;
▫ 5 – No existing buildings will be impacted;
▪ Type of Development Opportunity
▫ 1 – Housing opportunity would be achieved through demolition and rebuild;
▫ 2 – Housing opportunity represents a conversion of an existing building;
▫ 3 – Housing opportunity can be achieved through infill and/or severance;
Page 46 of 164
Oxford County pg. 43
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▫ 4 – Housing opportunity represents an addition to an existing building;
▫ 5 – Housing opportunity can be achieved on a vacant parcel;
▪ Long Term County Council Endorsement
▫ 0 – For sites that have not been endorsed by County Council by motion or as part of a
longer-term plan or strategy.
▫ 3 – For sites that have been endorsed by County Council by motion or as part of a longer-
term plan or strategy.
Property Evaluation Results
The results of the site evaluation are summarized in Table 13. Of note, 785 Southwood Way and
175 Springbank Avenue North were excluded from further analysis due to their advanced stage
in the County’s pre-existing housing procurement processes.
The remaining ten prioritized sites are summarized in Table 14, which also includes summary
information on the achievable density determined through the preparation of conceptual site plans.
Table 14 also includes the total estimated project cost and an estimate of funding necessary for
each project to advance, as determined by the proforma analysis. A funding range is provided
because several scenarios were evaluated in the proforma:
▪ Scenario 1: 100% of the project delivered at 80% of the CMHC AMR
▪ Scenario 2: 100% of the project delivered at 100% of the CMHC AMR
▪ Scenario 3: 50% of the project delivered at 80% of the CMHC AMR and 50% of the project
at market rates
▪ Scenario 4: 30% of the project delivered at 80% of the CMHC AMR and 70% of the project
at market rates (minimum to be eligible for CMHC Financing)
As market rents are included in the project, rental revenues increase, thus increasing the Net
Operating Income of the project. As illustrated in Figure 22, this allows for greater debt
financing, therefore reducing upfront funding requirements.
All scenarios assume the CMHC Co-Investment fund financing program is secured, including
both the low-cost loan and capital grant (Scenario 4 represents the minimum eligibility
requirement for this program). A cost premium to meet energy and accessibility requirements for
this program has also been included. We also assume local and County development charges are
waived for the affordable units and a $900,000 grant from senior level government. The County
owned sites cannot secure financing, meaning the total project costs must be paid fully upfront.
Page 47 of 164
Oxford County pg. 44
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
The various financial analyses were provided to the County under separate cover. In addition,
conceptual site plans (Appendix 2) have been provided for the majority of the priority sites, with
the exception of three sites that will remain confidential until they receive formal Council
endorsement.
Page 48 of 164
Oxford County pg. 45
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Table 13
Development Criteria Scoring Summary by Site
Municipality
CSD Name StreetAddress Total
Units
Total
Affordable/
RGI Units
Existing Use Ranking Score
(Out of 33)
Servicing
Capacity
Scoring
Developable
Area Scoring
Approval
Ease Scoring
Ownership
Scoring
Existing Use
Constraint
Scoring
Development
Type Scoring
Long Term
Council
Endorsement
Scoring
Woodstock 785 Southwood
Way 0 0 Vacant Land 1 33 5 5 5 5 5 5 3
Woodstock 175 Springbank
Avenue North 0 0 Church 2 28 5 5 1 5 5 4 3
Woodstock Confidential 0 0 -2 28 5 0 5 5 5 5 3
Woodstock 816 Alice Street 40 40 Apartment 4 26 5 5 4 5 3 4 0
Woodstock 769 Juliana
Drive 0 0 Vacant land and
church 4 26 5 5 5 3 5 3 0
Tillsonburg Confidential 0 0 -6 25 5 5 1 4 5 5 0
Woodstock 92 Light Street 0 0 Former Institutional
Building 7 25 5 5 3 5 5 2 0
Zorra 375629 37th Line 24 24 Apartment 7 25 5 5 4 3 5 3 0
Blandford-
Blenheim
43 Oxford Street
East 24 24 Apartment 9 24 2 5 5 3 5 4 0
Zorra Confidential 0 0 -10 22 2 5 1 4 5 5 0
Ingersoll 235 Thames
Street North 22 22 Townhouses 10 22 5 5 4 5 2 1 0
East Zorra-
Tavistock
30 Balsam
Street 16 16 Multiple Attached 12 21 0 5 5 3 5 3 0
Woodstock 83 Kent Street 60 39 Apartment 12 21 5 1 5 3 3 4 0
Woodstock 901 to 951
James Street 30 30 Multiple Attached 12 21 5 5 4 5 1 1 0
Woodstock 715 Parkinson
Road 40 40 Multiple Attached 12 21 5 1 4 3 5 3 0
Zorra 111 Brock Street 24 24 Apartment 16 20 5 1 4 5 3 2 0
Blandford-
Blenheim
91 Mill Street
East 30 22 Apartment 17 19 2 1 5 1 5 5 0
Tillsonburg 215 Lisgar
Avenue 44 44 Apartment 17 19 5 3 4 5 1 1 0
Woodstock 40 Stafford
Street 5 5 Apartment and
Multiple Attached 17 19 5 1 4 3 5 1 0
Ingersoll 220 Ingersoll
Street North 60 60 Townhouses 20 18 5 1 4 3 1 4 0
Woodstock 259-293 Karn
Avenue 24 24 Semi-detached
Dwellings 20 18 5 3 1 5 3 1 0
Woodstock 279-287 Cross
Place 10 10 Semi-detached
Dwellings 20 18 5 3 1 5 3 1 0
Woodstock 34 Riddell
Street 28 20 Apartment 23 17 5 1 5 1 3 2 0
Woodstock 414 Ontario
Street 81 81 Multiple Attached 23 17 5 5 4 1 1 1 0
Woodstock 360 Springbank
Avenue North 24 24 Multiple Attached 23 17 5 5 4 1 1 1 0
Woodstock 36 Stafford
Street 8 8 Multiple Attached 23 17 5 1 4 1 5 1 0
Tillsonburg 390 Quarter
Town Line 40 40 Multiple Attached 23 17 5 1 4 3 1 3 0
Tillsonburg 31 Maple Lane 59 48 Apartment 28 16 5 1 5 3 1 1 0
Ingersoll 119 to 123 John
Street 20 12 Multiple Attached 29 15 5 1 4 1 3 1 0
Ingersoll 50 Garland
Court 14 14 Multiple Attached 30 15 5 1 4 1 3 1 0
Page 49 of 164
Oxford County pg. 46
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Table 14
Municipality Street Address
Total
Existing
Affordable/
RGI Units
Existing Use Property Area
(acres)
County OP
Designation Zoning Ownership
Potential New
Total Rental
Units
Estimated
Project Costs
Estimated Funding
Requirement Range
(80% AMR to
Market/AMR Split)^
Woodstock Confidential 0 -0.25 Central Business
District C5 Confidential 35 $12,239,806 $3.8M - $7.5M
Tillsonburg Confidential 0 -4.50 Low Density
Residential
IN-1
(rezoning)Confidential 47 $13,920,009 $2.6M - $7.5M
Woodstock 816 Alice Street 40 Apartment
1.50
(room for addition
to east)
Medium Density
Residential
R3
(MV)Oxford County 10 $1,608,173 ~$700k
Woodstock 769 Juliana
Drive 0 Vacant land and
church
3.5
(Only west 1.5 ac
severed)
High Density
Residential R4-2 Non-Profit 58 $20,781,302 $7M - 12.7M
Woodstock 92 Light Street 0 Former Institutional
Building
2.0 (Estimated
Severed Parcel)
Central Business
District
CF-17
(rezoning)Oxford County 20 $7,035,210 $1.7M - $3.9M
Zorra 375629 37th Line 24 Apartment 4.9
(2.0 acres for infill)
Medium Density
Residential
R3
(MV)Non-Profit 28 $8,707,751 $1.8M - $4.6M
Blandford-
Blenheim
43 Oxford Street
East 24 Apartment
4.6
(2.0 acres
available for
infill)
Medium Density
Residential R3 Non-Profit 25 $8,404,784 $2.1M - $4.5M
Zorra Confidential 0 -Approx. 4.9 ac Community Park REC-2 Confidential 55 $16,766,595 $3.9M - $9.6M
Ingersoll 235 Thames
Street North 22 Townhouses
2.0
(1.5 acres outside
of regulated area)
Medium Density
Residential
R3
(MV)Oxford County 7 $2,954,652 ~$2.0M
East Zorra-
Tavistock
30 Balsam
Street 16 Multiple Attached
3.33
(Approx. 1.5 acres
to rear)
Medium Density
Residential R3-6 Non-Profit 46 $12,922,858 $2.1M - $6.9M
Notes: Based on NBLC Site Evaluation and Proforma Analysis. ^ Assumes proponent has no equity or other funding source.
Development Site Information Summary
Page 50 of 164
Oxford County pg. 47
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Non-Asset Housing Strategies
The results of the housing needs assessment clearly illustrate a need for increased supply across
the continuum. The development of public and private lands with new affordable rental housing
is the best strategy for addressing the identified needs (Section 3.1 of this report). Notwithstanding
this, other strategies can also play a meaningful role in addressing housing needs.
Affordable Home Ownership Program
The County currently has an Affordable Ownership Program, that is funded from a revolving
Provincial loan fund, that provides eligible households with a forgivable grant that offers down
payment support to first-time homebuyers (repayable if the home is sold within 20 years, in
addition to capital appreciation if the home increased in value).
The program was recently updated to reflect current market conditions, as follow:
2019 Program Eligibility Criteria:
▪ Maximum home purchase price: $264,619 (10% below the average home price for the County
as of 2019).
▪ Maximum gross household income: $63,630 (median household income as per Statistics
Canada).
▪ Maximum loan amount (5% of purchase price): $10,000
At the time of the update (November 2021), the average resale price had increased to $670,000.
Given these market conditions, the eligibility criteria rendered the program ineffective as the
supply of homes available for purchase below $264,619 were reduced/eliminated.
Based on the average resale price in November 2021, the new maximum affordable purchase price
would be $603,630 (10% below the average). However, this would not be affordable to a
household earning $63,630. Ministry funding guidelines allow for a maximum household income
of $92,700, which would result in an affordable purchase price of approximately $370,000 -
$425,000.
As identified in Table 2, the above income threshold would fall in the 6th income decile of the
County.
The revised 2022 Program Eligibility Criteria:
▪ Maximum home purchase price: $425,000
▪ Maximum gross household income: $92,700
▪ Maximum loan amount (5% of purchase price): $21,000
Page 51 of 164
Oxford County pg. 48
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ In addition to the above, the following also applies:
▫ The applicant(s) must be at least 18 years old and currently renting in the County;
▫ The applicant(s) must not have any interest in a home;
▫ The applicant(s) must not owe money to a Community Housing landlord;
▫ The applicant(s) must pre-qualify for a mortgage;
▫ The home must be the sole and principle residence of the approved purchaser(s) and
located in Oxford County;
▫ The forgivable loan will be registered on title as a second mortgage, and is repayable in
full, plus capital appreciation, if the home is sold and/or transferred before the 20-year
term is complete.
As noted in this report, the average resale price has continued to escalate significantly since 2021.
The resale data presented in Section 2.2 of this report indicates that the average resale price has
increased by 34% and 92% since 2021 and 2020, respectively, and is currently over $850,000. An
income in the 9th income decile would be necessary to afford these homes. While there are a small
sample of homes available for purchase in Oxford County below $500,000, it is also important to
understand that interest rates have been rising rapidly since February, which erodes the borrowing
capacity and affordable purchase price for lower and moderate-income households. For example,
every 1% increase in mortgage interest may reduce a household’s purchasing power by around
9% - 11%. As a simple illustration, a household earning $90,000, spending 30% of this income,
with a 25-year mortgage could afford:
▪ 4.5% interest: $418,000
▪ 5.5% interest: $382,000 (9% decrease in purchasing power)
While the updated Municipal Capital Facility By-Law allows the Director of Human Services to
adjust the eligibility criteria to reflect market movement with regard to changes in home prices,
interest rates, and required incomes, it is likely that the qualifying income will need to adjust
upwards as affordability in the ownership market worsens. This means that the program is more
likely to be assisting higher income first-time purchasers in the future. As home prices rise, the
effectiveness of affordable home ownership programs targeted to lower and moderate-income
households erodes, as these groups require greater assistance to qualify for a mortgage.
Demand-side programs such as affordable ownership are not effective in low-supply and rapidly
appreciating markets. Rather, they increase demand by improving the purchasing power of
households to compete in an already tight and expensive resale market. While they can be
effective in lower-cost and modest markets (like Oxford between 2007 and 2016), they become
Page 52 of 164
Oxford County pg. 49
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
less impactful in current times. Increasing the supply and variety of housing in the County should
therefore be viewed as a priority longer-term strategy for addressing ownership affordability.
As a result of the above, the County has assisted 171 families through this program since 2007,
however applications have significantly reduced since 2018, with very little uptake since the latest
update in January 2022.
It is also important to note that affordability in the ownership market is not permanent, as
households can sell their home in the private market for a profit at any time (with the County
sharing in the appreciation if sold within 20-years). Given the significant market movement in
recent years, the County has identified that the vast majority of households who have participated
in the program since 2007 have sold their homes for a significant profit, with the associated down
payment loans having been repaid in full, with capital appreciation. This finding is similar to
many affordable ownership programs since 2010 (e.g., Options for Homes, Trillium Housing,
etc.).
The Housing Needs Assessment also clearly illustrates a stronger need for new affordable and
market rental housing. Affordable rental housing in particular is needed, which will also provide
permanently affordable housing options to a wide range and large number of households over the
life of the asset, whereas affordable ownership will provide one-time assistance to a single
household.
Notwithstanding the above, there is a clear need to address gaps in the ownership housing market.
While the best option for addressing this need is increased supply and variety of housing types,
this approach takes time to balance housing conditions. It also requires greater supply and more
balanced housing conditions in the municipalities surrounding Oxford County. Short-term
housing affordability will also impact the growth potential and economic competitiveness of the
County if households cannot afford to live and work in the community. The County might
therefore consider a variety of changes to the program to overcome these challenges in the short-
term:
▪ Maintain the program as it exists, understanding that participation is likely to continue to be
modest given the limitations of moderate-income households to compete in the housing
market with the current eligibility criteria.
▪ Raise the eligible income and purchase price to target higher income households.
▪ Increase the down payment assistance grant/loan to individual applicants to improve the
purchasing power of households, allowing them to better compete in the housing market.
While this might assist fewer households, it will allow the program to be more effective in the
current market.
▪ Eliminate the program and allocate the budget resources to other housing strategies, if
permitted by the province.
Page 53 of 164
Oxford County pg. 50
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
My Second Unit Funding Program
County Council approved the implementation of a secondary unit funding program in 2022. Key
details of the program include:
▪ Oxford County’s My Second Unit helps homeowners plan and finance a secondary, self-
contained dwelling unit with an interest-free, forgivable loan of up to $15,000.
▪ The loan amount is fully forgivable following a 10-year forgiveness period without default.
▪ The second unit (apartment) is required to be rented at the Average Market Rent (AMR), as
specified by the County, for the 10-year period.
▪ Homeowners must own their home and it must be their primary residence during the 10-year
forgiveness period.
▪ Homeowners are required to rent to tenants with household incomes less than $92,700
(2022/23).
▪ Funding may be used to cover the costs for municipal zoning verification or rezoning
applications, building permits, and other permits as required.
▪ If the qualifying criteria are not met during the 10-year loan, the amount must be repaid (Over
the 10-year term, homeowners will be required to provide rental receipts and lease agreements
on an annual basis).
This funding is intended to support the creation of more ‘missing middle’ rental housing by
leveraging the existing private housing stock throughout the County. Examples of second units
can include basement apartments, laneway homes, granny flats, and other similar secondary
dwelling units.
Relative to constructing new rental housing, which is expensive, requires significant resources,
and takes several years to implement, the creation of second units can be a relatively quick and
cost-effective way to increase the supply of rental housing that leverages the existing private
housing stock. This also provides an opportunity to expand affordable rental options in locations
where new affordable housing development is expected to be modest, such as outside of the three
urban municipalities. The addition of a second unit can also be attractive to many homeowners
as it provides a source of rental income.
This program therefore directly aligns with one of the core findings of the Housing Needs
Assessment – to increase the supply of affordable rental housing. Combined with the
development of new housing identified in Section 3.1, the combination of these strategies can
have a meaningful impact in addressing the housing needs of Oxford County. However, some
considerations are noted:
▪ It is very difficult to determine the ‘appropriate’ grant amount for an existing homeowner to
be incented to create a second unit. Unlike private and non-profit developers who will have
Page 54 of 164
Oxford County pg. 51
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
defined business plans and hurdle rates, the individual goals and objectives of homeowners
will vary widely.
▫ It will therefore be important for the County to monitor the program’s take-up, continue
consultation, and make appropriate adjustments over time.
▪ In addition to financial hurdles, the creation of second units and other modest infill can be
undermined by process related hurdles, NIMBYism, requirements to amend zoning (including
minor variances), and other similar issues.
▫ Recent changes proposed through Bill 23 may address some of these issues.
▪ The requirement for units to be rented at the CMHC AMR aligns with the findings of the
Housing Needs Assessment. However, this may act as a disincentive for households looking
to create a second unit, particularly given the modest funding amount. Further, the
requirement for private households to check and confirm the income of prospective tenants
and prepare receipts and reports for the County to confirm compliance adds additional
complexity. A household may also find it difficult, real or perceived, to find a tenant with a
qualifying income.
▫ Often, second units, and particularly basement apartments, are offered at a rent well
below the price of professionally managed rental buildings, providing a supply of rental
homes to lower and moderate-income households.
▫ Further, the findings of the Housing Needs Assessment strongly indicate unmet demand
for affordable and market rate rental housing. Rental housing offered in between
affordable and market rates are needed to assist households that do not qualify for
affordable rental housing (i.e., earn more than the income threshold), or cannot find (due
to low vacancy) suitable market rental housing.
▪ While it is too early to judge program success, we understand that there has been significant
interest in the program since it was implemented, but not as much take up as originally
anticipated. That said, it is early in the implementation process, and staff should continue to
monitor the program, including consideration for increased funding, reducing the
administrative burden, reducing affordability requirements, or a combination of these
approaches.
▪ The County might also consider adding two streams of funding for the second units, one for
‘market rate’ supply and another for ‘affordable’ supply. Alternatively, incentive programs
to encourage the construction of market rate purpose-built rental can be considered (see
discussion to follow).
▪ It is also important to note that not all houses can accommodate or are appropriate for a second
unit. Increasingly, we are seeing municipalities that are growing primarily through low-
Page 55 of 164
Oxford County pg. 52
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
density development (as forecasted for Oxford County) to require features in new
subdivisions that will more easily facilitate a second unit, such as a separate basement
entrance.
Incentive Programs
Incentive programs can also be an effective solution to address the identified housing gaps. Many
communities in Ontario have incentive programs to encourage affordable and market rate rental
housing.
▪ Peel Region for example recently created an incentive program to encourage ‘near market’
rental at 135% of the CMHC AMR, which was implemented to encourage the supply of rental
housing for households that don’t qualify for the Region’s affordable housing programs. In
its first year, 135 new rental units were approved with a budget of $7.5M.
▪ The City of Toronto also has an incentive program that encourages the creation of affordable
rental at 100% of the CMHC AMR. The program waives development charges, cash in lieu
of parkland, planning application fees, building permit fees, and also offers capital grants.
There are also numerous examples of municipalities using incentive programs to encourage
intensification, such as condominium apartments. The City of Hamilton used a package of
incentives through a Community Improvement Plan to encourage market rate rental and
condominium development in their downtown since 2000, with significant success since 2010.
Overall, incentives that encourage investment by the private sector in apartment projects, whether
rental or condominium (providing ownership housing price well below low-density options)
would be a positive outcome. Oxford County could consider leading such an incentive program,
with participation by the local municipalities. Alternatively, existing local-area Community
Improvement Plans could be amended to include these outcomes, or new programs be created,
that includes financial participation by the County.
Incentives can be targeted to create affordable and/or market housing by the private sector. Of
note, Bill 23 is currently proposing as-of-right exemptions from municipal fees and charges, such
as parkland, for affordable housing.
Land Acquisition / Partnership
The most effective option for increasing the supply of affordable rental housing is through
strategic development of County, private, and non-profit lands, as assessed in Section 3.1 of this
report. The County should therefore consider continued land acquisition to continue these
investments as properties are developed, including intensification at existing housing sites. This
could also include the identification of strategic surplus properties as appropriate.
The County can also continue to promote partnerships with key housing groups. Non-profit
housing providers that specialize in affordable ownership (e.g., Options for Homes, Habitat for
Page 56 of 164
Oxford County pg. 53
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Humanity, Home Opportunities, Trillium Housing, etc.) provide an opportunity to not only
address a significant housing need in the County, but also increase the supply of housing. Unlike
the County’s Affordable Ownership Program that provides down payment assistance only (i.e.,
requiring a household to compete in the resale market for a limited number of qualifying
properties), these groups provide down payment through a second mortgage while also developing
new housing. Further, the County could stack their own down payment program with the second
mortgage offered by these non-profit groups to improve the affordability of the project.
Often, these projects can proceed without subsidy if land is made available. The County should
therefore continue partnerships with these groups, potentially offering land and other support to
encourage these outcomes. Continued partnerships to encourage permanent affordable rental
housing on surplus properties should also continue to be investigated.
Planning and Growth Management
As noted throughout this report, the best option for addressing ownership housing affordability is
to ensure that realistic housing forecasts are developed, and enough land is made available to
allow developers to keep pace with demand. It is equally important that a diverse range of housing,
including smaller and more compact housing forms that are affordable to a broader range of
households (e.g. compact townhomes, condominium apartments, tiny homes, etc.) are delivered.
This should continue to be carefully considered through the ongoing Municipal Comprehensive
Review and Official Plan Update.
Page 57 of 164
Oxford County pg. 54
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
4.0 Recommendations and Direction
Overall, the findings of this work indicate that there are significant housing gaps and affordability
challenges observed in Oxford County. Action is required to improve affordability in the
ownership and rental markets through increased supply and a broader variety of housing types, in
addition to investments in RGI and affordable rental housing.
As identified in this report, the following direction is recommended:
▪ Through the ongoing Municipal Comprehensive Review (‘MCR’), ensure that an adequate
supply of land and housing is planned for, including a diversity of housing types that include
lower cost options such smaller single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, and other
compact housing forms. Implementing as of right permissions that reduce development
timelines and uncertainty can also have a meaningful impact in improving supply.
▫ This can be achieved through planning policies, implementing zoning provisions,
minimum density targets, investments in servicing and infrastructure, and other similar
strategies.
▪ Consider amendments to the County Community Improvement Plan to further incentivise
rental housing. A similar approach could be considered by Local Municipalities, with respect
to local planning and building permit fees, to encourage continued collaboration and
integration with current incentives.
▪ Consider a housing repair program to promote aging in place, increased housing stability, and
better-quality housing conditions for households living in homes that require critical repairs
or accessibility modifications. While this program does not seek to create new affordable
units, it will provide some relief to households that are struggling to maintain their home and
make ends meet. This strategy can also be stacked with funding available through CMHC
Co-Investment Fund Repair and Renewal Stream for larger multi-family properties.
▪ The County should begin preparing for the development of the identified priority sites to
ensure a steady supply of affordable rental is delivered over the next ten-years. This will
ensure sites are more shovel-ready through consultation with landowners and non-profits as
well as securing required funding for projects to be delivered. This would also include
providing a mix of affordable and market rental units. Along with encouraging adequate
supply through the ongoing MCR, these strategies are best situated to meet the identified
housing needs.
▪ Focus on providing housing for those in core housing need. Any new affordable housing
developments should consider the creation of units for the identified households in core
housing need, including specific requirements in future Request for Proposals (RFP).
Page 58 of 164
Oxford County pg. 55
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▪ Consider updates the County’s current Municipal Housing Facilities By-law to address the
increasing needs of households that fall below the affordability threshold of 80% AMR and
those that fall above the current threshold.
▪ The County should also be investigating opportunities to acquire new lands, identify new
surplus properties, and evaluate the potential of other properties evaluated in Table 13 for
new housing development. Partnerships with non-profit affordable ownership groups can be
considered on these sites that may require minimal additional funding from the County.
▪ Both the Affordable Ownership and My Second Unit program should be re-evaluated in 2023
to ensure they are achieving their desired outcomes. If program take-up remains modest,
changes should be made as suggested in this report. All changes should be considered within
the context of the Housing Needs Assessment with regard to where strategies fall across the
Housing Continuum. For example:
▫ Investment in priority housing properties: focusing on low to moderate-income renter
households, and a mix of market types.
▫ Partnerships with non-profit and private organizations: Focusing on low to moderate-
income renter and ownership households.
▫ My Second Unit Program: Focusing on moderate-income renter households.
▫ Affordable Ownership Program: Focusing on moderate-income owner households.
▫ Incentive Programs: Focusing on Moderate- to high-income renter and owner
households.
▫ Increased and diversified housing supply through the MCR: Focusing on moderate to
high-income owner and renter households.
▪ The Oxford County 10-Year Shelter Plan sets objectives and targets for a ten-year time frame
(2014-2024) to support the vision of affordable housing for all. The plan was most recently
updated in 2019. In support of the Shelter Plan, Oxford County established an annual target
of creating 50 new affordable units every year. Since 2007, County Council has approved a
total of 30 affordable housing projects totaling 568 affordable units.
▪ Since 2015, the County has exceeded the 50 unit target, which was made possible through a
funding commitment of $23.5M from the Federal and Provincial government and an
additional $10.7M in County funding (in addition to development charge exemptions).
Despite this progress, affordability continues to worsen, and the wait list for affordable
housing continues to grow.
Page 59 of 164
Oxford County pg. 56
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
▫ Based on the County’s current waitlist of approximately 2,400 households, it would take
around 48 years to fully address these housing needs, if the waitlist remains static and
all individuals are accommodated in the affordable housing that is targeted each year. In
addition to the wait list, there is also a low vacancy rate for rental housing and a sizeable
proportion of households in Core Housing Need. At the same time, Oxford County is
expected to continue to grow quickly, which will create growing affordability pressures
if adequate housing supply is not accommodated.
▫ The gap between affordable housing supply and demand continues to grow. Addressing
this gap requires substantial levels of investment from all levels of government, as well
as the non-profit and private sectors. In a continuously changing policy environment,
there is constant uncertainty regarding long-term funding for affordable housing.
▫ In response to this, and in an effort to increase the County’s annual affordable housing
target, the priority project approach that is proposed is the most effective at ensuring the
County remains strategic in terms of affordable housing development and available
funding.
▫ While staff will focus on the priority projects and non-asset housing strategies that have
been identified, with the intent to increase the County’s current affordable housing target
beyond 50 units annually, it is understood that this target is strongly linked to a number
of factors, including market conditions, available funding, and willingness of project
proponents. Based on these factors, and considering the unprecedented need for rental
housing, there is no set number of rental units that will assist to entirely close the
affordability gap. That said, the proposed priority projects and non-asset strategies are
expected to significantly improve the County’s ability to assist in addressing the current
housing shortage more strategically.
▪ Oxford County should therefore consider exceeding the target where possible and where
increased funding commitments from all levels of government can be secured.
Page 60 of 164
Oxford County pg. 57
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Appendix 1: Conceptual Site Plans
To provide statistical inputs into the financial analysis of each of the recommended sites conceptual massing plans were prepared. The
drawings have not been scaled utilizing registered surveys, however, most illustrated dimensions are accurate to within 95 to 100% of actual
dimensions. They are therefore useful approximations for the purposes of understanding parking requirements, order of magnitude floor
areas, massing fit and potential site layouts for parking and building placement. Three of the concept plans remain confidential until
appropriate approvals are in place.
Page 61 of 164
Oxford County pg. 58
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
816 Alice Street, Woodstock
View Southeast View Northwest
Page 62 of 164
Oxford County pg. 59
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Residential
Addition Retail Additional
Parking Spaces
Parking
Ratio
Basement 3 1 3 2 1,100 0
1 to 2 3 3 9 8 4,400 0
Attic 4.3 1 4.3 0 0
Total:5 16 10 5,500 0 10 1.0
FSI:Existing:0.45 Proposed:0.53
Conceptual Development Statistics
816 Alice Street, Woodstock
Floors
Floor
Height
(m)
No.
Floors
Overall
Height
(m)
Unit Count
(450 sf)
Gross Construction Floor
Area (sf)Site StatisticsProperty
Area
(acres)
Official Plan
Designation Zoning
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
1.5
Medium
Density
Residential
R3
(MV
required)
1-Assumes 1:1 parking ratio for new spaces (no new visitor parking). New spaces are in addition to the existing 17. 2-No parkland dedication assumed to be required. 3-Floor
area and parking spaces pertain to addition only. 4-Existing density estimated to be 0.45 xFSI. 5-Floor total excludes mechanical penthouse. 6-'MP' refers to Mechanical
Penthouse.
Notes
• 10-unit apartment addition to the east side of the existing 40-unit building. Unit sizes are to
match those of the existing building.
• Increases the existing surface parking count by up to 15 spaces (17 to 32 parking spaces),
through the addition of 5 spaces on the east side of the site, 7 parallel spaces along the driveway
loop, reconfiguration of the existing lot and restriping.
• Proposed redevelopment will likely require a minor variance approval to permit a reduction in
the parking space requirements which are 1.5 resident spaces per unit and 0.1 visitor spaces per
unit.
• Some displacement will be required for existing units along the construction interface.
• Potential to combine this site with County owned Cross Place parcels to the south to create a
larger project in the future.
Page 63 of 164
Oxford County pg. 60
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
769 Juliana Drive, Woodstock
View Southwest View Northwest
Page 64 of 164
Oxford County pg. 61
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Residential Retail Parking
Spaces
Parking Ratio
(Per Unit)*
1 4.5 1 4.5 7,900 0
2 to 9 3 8 24 45,600 0
MP 3 1 4 200 0
9 33 59 53,700 0 70 1.2
FSI:Existing:0.00 Proposed:1.03
Conceptual Development Statistics
769 Juliana Drive, Woodstock
Floors Floor
Height (m)No. Floors
Overall
Height
(m)
Unit
Count
(750 sf)
Gross Construction Floor Area
(sf)Other Site StatisticsOfficial Plan
Designation Zoning
Proposed
Severed
Area
(acres)
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
Notes: 1-Parking ratio assumption is inclusive of visitor parking. 2-No parkland dedication assumed. 3-Assumes severance to create smaller site area to achieve Official Plan
minimum density requirement of 31 units per acre. FSI relates to proposed site area. 4-Floor total excludes mechanical penthouse. 5-'MP' refers to Mechanical Penthouse.
Total:
High Density
Residential R4-21.2
Notes
• Potential redevelopment parcel located at the west end of parcel owned by Salvation Army.
• Site avoids existing parking areas attributed with Salvation Army.
• High Density Residential land use designation in the County Official Plan permits up to 60 units
per acre and a minimum density of 31 units per acre. Severance to create new development site
adheres to this policy direction.
• R4-2 zoning permits maximum building height of 9 storeys and requires minimum 30-metre
setbacks from Lampman Place and Juliana Drive. The setback requirements have the effect of
promoting a design with surface parking in both the front and exterior side yards.
• A minor variance to achieve a reduction in the existing parking requirement of 1.5 resident spaces
per unit and 0.1 visitor spaces per unit is required unless additional parking is placed in the rear
yard.
• The proposed unit total of 59 is based on an average unit size of 750 square feet and the application
of an 82% net-to-gross floor area ratio.
Page 65 of 164
Oxford County pg. 62
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
92 Light Street, Woodstock
View Northwest View Southeast
Page 66 of 164
Oxford County pg. 63
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Residential Retail Parking
Spaces
Parking
Ratio
(Per Unit)*
1 4.5 1 4.5 6.9 6,100 0
2 to 3 3 2 6 13.8 12,200 0
MP 3 1 3 0.0 0 0
14 21 18,300 0 25 1.2
FSI:0.93
Conceptual Development Statistics
Floors
Floor
Height
(m)
No.
Floors
Overall
Height
(m)
Gross Construction Floor
Area (sf)
Unit Count
(@725 sf)
Other Site Statistics
Notes: 1-Parking ratio assumption is inclusive of visitor parking. 2-No parkland dedication assumed. 3-Floor total excludes mechanical penthouse. 4-Assumes
severance of site. FSI relates to the severed property. 5-'MP' refers to Mechanical Penthouse.
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
92 Light Street, Woodstock
Total:
Site Area
(acres)
Official Plan
Designation Zoning
0.45
Central
Business
District
CF-17
(rezoning
required)
Notes
• Potential redevelopment parcel located at the northwest quadrant of large County owned parcel
– would require a severance.
• Renovation/ retrofit of the existing building is not conducive to an efficient apartment layout
within a three-storey built form.
• CF-17 zoning would necessitate a rezoning approval to permit apartment uses. A parking ratio
of 1:1 is the current minimum in this area.
• Conceptual design illustrates how a 21-unit, 3-storey design with 25 surface parking spaces can
be accommodated (1.2 parking spaces per unit inclusive of visitor parking).
• The unit total of 21 is based on an average unit size of 750 square feet and the application of an
82% net-to-gross floor area ratio.
Page 67 of 164
Oxford County pg. 64
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
375629 37th Line, Embro, Township of Zorra
View Southeast View Southwest
Page 68 of 164
Oxford County pg. 65
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Residential Retail Parking
Spaces
Parking
Ratio
1 4.5 1 4.5 8,700 0
2 to 3 3 2 6 17,400 0
MP 4 1 4 0 0
Total:4 15 29 26,100 0 44 1.5
FSI:Existing:0.00 Proposed:0.29
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
2.1
Medium
Density
Residential
R2-1 (Zorra)
1-Assumes no parkland dedication requirement. 2-Floor total excludes mechanical penthouse. 3-Property area estimated to be 4.9 acres. 4-FSI relates to entire property. 5-'MP'
refers to Mechanical Penthouse.
Conceptual Development Statistics
375629 37th Line, Embro, Township of Zorra
Floors
Floor
Height
(m)
No.
Floors
Overall
Height (m)
Unit
Count
(750 sf)
Gross Construction Floor
Area (sf)Site StatisticsProposed
Severed
Area
(acres)
Official Plan
Designation Zoning
Notes
• Conceptual plan proposes to potentially sever the Embro and Area Seniors owned parcel in two,
with the development site occupying the southerly portion of the property. Notwithstanding this,
a severance is note necessary.
• The site is complicated by hilly terrain. The design features development along the crest of a
ridge along the west lot line that connects back east to 37th line. Notwithstanding this, a
severance is not necessary.
• A total of 44 surface parking spaces have been proposed for a total of 29 units (1.5 spaces per
unit), with density limited by the technical ability to provide parking on areas with less slope.
• The unit total of 29 is based on an average unit size of 750 square feet and the application of an
82% net-to-gross floor area ratio.
• Conceptual design illustrates how a 21-unit design and 25 surface parking spaces can be
accommodated (1.2 parking spaces per unit inclusive of visitor parking).
Page 69 of 164
Oxford County pg. 66
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
43 Oxford Street East, Blandford Blenheim
View Southeast View Southwest
Page 70 of 164
Oxford County pg. 67
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Residential Retail Parking
Spaces
Parking
Ratio
1 4.5 1 4.5 7,800 0
2 to 3 3 2 6 15,500 0
MP 4 1 4 200 0
Total:4 15 26 23,500 0 39 1.5
(New) FSI:Existing:0.13 Proposed:0.24
Conceptual Development Statistics
43 Oxford Street East, Drumbo, Township of Brandford-Bleinheim
Floors
Floor
Height
(m)
No.
Floors
Overall
Height (m)
Unit
Count
(750 sf)
Gross Construction Floor
Area (sf)Site StatisticsProperty
Area
(acres)
Official Plan
Designation Zoning
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
1-Parking ratio assumption is inclusive of visitor parking. 2-Assumes no parkland dedication requirement. 3-Floor total excludes mechanical penthouse. 4-FSI relates to
entire property. 5-'MP' refers to Mechanical Penthouse.
4.6
Medium
Density
Residential
R3
Notes
• The site is owned by Drumbo and District Housing and is currently occupied by a single-storey
townhouse building. The concept proposes to utilize the vacant easterly portion of the site as an
infill project.
• A 6.7-metre access driveway is proposed to extend west to the existing driveway with
approximately 6 to 10 metres of setback to the north wall of the existing building.
A total of 39 surface parking spaces have been proposed for a total of 26 units (1.5 spaces per
unit).
• The proposed 3-storey apartment building has been located in an area that is screened from
existing residential units by mature trees.
• The unit total of 26 is based on an average unit size of 750 square feet and the application of an
82% net-to-gross floor area ratio.
Page 71 of 164
Oxford County pg. 68
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
30 Balsam Street, Innerkip
View Southwest View Northeast
Page 72 of 164
Oxford County pg. 69
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Residential Retail Parking
Spaces
Parking
Ratio
1 4 1 4 14,000 0
2 to 3 3 2 6 28,000 0
MP 4 1 4 200 0
Total:3 14 46 42,200 0 69 1.5
FSI:Existing:0.23 Proposed:0.51
3.3
Medium
Density
Residential
R3-6
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
1-Floor total excludes mechanical penthouse. 2-Assumes no parkland dedication required. 3-FSI relates to entire property. 4-'MP' refers to Mechanical Penthouse. 5-This
conceptual development assumes no servicing constraints.
Conceptual Development Statistics
30 Balsam Street, Innerkip, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock
Floors
Floor
Height
(m)
No.
Floors
Overall
Height
(m)
Unit Count
(750 sf)
Gross Construction Floor
Area (sf)Site Statistics
Property
Area
(acres)
Official Plan
Designation Zoning
Notes
• The proposed redevelopment of 30 Balsam Street would infill the rear (northerly) portions of
the site which are currently vacant. Vehicular and pedestrian access would be granted by
easement through the existing Innerkip Seniors Apartments driveway system out to Balsam
Street.
• Due to the proximity of low-rise homes on all sides, the proposed building height was limited
to three storeys. A total of 46 apartment units were estimated based on an average suite size of
750 square feet per unit and a net-to-gross floor area ratio of 82%.
• A total of 69 parking spaces were provided, based on a parking ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per
unit.
Page 73 of 164
Oxford County pg. 70
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
235 Thames Street North, Ingersoll
Figure 23
View Southeast View Northwest
Page 74 of 164
Oxford County pg. 71
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Residential Retail Parking
Spaces
Parking
Ratio
1 3 1 3 2,700 0
2 to 3 3 2 6 5,400 0
MP 0 0 0 0 0
Total:3 9 8 8,100 0 10 1
FSI:0.09
Conceptual Development Statistics
235 Thames St N, Ingersoll
Floors Floor
Height (m)No. Floors Overall
Height (m)
Stacked
Townhouse
Unit Count
(1,125 sf)
Gross Construction
Floor Area (sf)Site StatisticsProperty
Area
(acres)
Official Plan
Designation Zoning
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
2.0
Medium
Density
Residential &
Open Space
R3 (MV
required)
1-No parkland dedication assumed. 2-FSI based on proposed floor area only. 3-'MP' refers to Mechanical Penthouse.
Notes
• The proposed concept plan retains existing townhouse units and inserts an 8-unit stacked
townhouse building along Upper Thames Fill Regulation Limit in westerly third of the
property. All construction is outside of the floodplain limit.
• Review of this and future designs would be required by the Upper Thames River Conservation
Authority (the “UTRCA”).
• A 6.7-metre access driveway extension is proposed to provide access to 10 new surface parking
spaces partially within the fill regulation limit.
• Some disruption would be experienced during construction however, no existing renters would
be displaced.
• The unit total of 8 is based on an average unit size of 1,125 square feet.
Page 75 of 164
Oxford County pg. 72
Master Housing Strategy
NBLC Docket #22-3560, December 2022
Appendix 2: Oxford County Housing Needs Assessment
Page 76 of 164
Oxford County –
Master Housing
Strategy
Housing Needs Assessment
June 2022
Page 77 of 164
Table of Contents
1.0: Income and Affordability Thresholds Page 3
2.0: Housing Available to Oxford County Households Page 12
2.1: Ownership Resale Housing Page 13
2.2: Ownership New Sale Housing Page 17
2.3: Rental Housing Page 28
3.0: Affordability Gap Analysis Page 39
4.0: Who are the Households Facing Affordability Challenges Page 44
5.0: Growth Trends and Forecasts Page 49
6.0: Affordable Housing in Oxford County Page 55
7.0: Findings and Direction Page 62
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 2
Page 78 of 164
1.0: Income and
Affordability Thresholds
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 3
Page 79 of 164
Affordable
Housing
Definition:
Oxford County
and Provincial
Policy
Statement
Affordable Ownership Housing -the least expensive of (Oxford County MCFB):
1.Monthly mortgage costs (including mortgage principle, interest and property taxes) do not exceed 30 percent of gross monthly household income; and
2.The purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of a resale home in Oxford County, or a lesser amount as deemed appropriate by the Director of Human Services; and
3.Total annual household income does not exceed the 6th income decile level for Oxford County according to Statistics Canada, and/or determined by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and
Affordable Rental Housing (Oxford County MCFB):
1.Housing where monthly rental costs (excluding utilities) do not exceed 30 percent of the tenant’s gross monthly household income; and
2.Is rented at or below the average market rent for a rental unit in Oxford County; and
3.Where total household income does not exceed 60% of the median household income for Oxford County as per Statistics Canada (or the 6th income decile).
Low-and Moderate-Income Households (Provincial Policy Statement):
1.Low Income: below the 3rd income decile
2.Moderate Income: between the 3rd and 6th income decile
4N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
Page 80 of 164
Housing Continuum: Income Distribution
5
WOODSTOCK
Avg. $1,120,000
TILLSONBURG
Avg. $1,100,000
INGERSOLL
Avg. $730,729
Low-Income
Moderate-Income
High-Income
Page 81 of 164
Census Data Key Indicators: Income
6
•Total incomes in the County have increased, with owner household incomes increasing at a quicker rate than renter households.
•The income of renter households remain well below owner households. In fact, owner incomes are more than twice as much as renter incomes.
•Nearly 75% of renter households earn less than $60k, with 20% earning less than $20k. The inverse is true for ownership households, with over 36% earning more than $100k.
•As this data represents the 2016 census, the analysis should be updated when the 2021 census is released late-2022.
Owner Income Distribution Renter Income Distribution
Year Income % Change
06 - 16
2006 $64,633
2011 $68,487
2016 $79,917 23.6%
2006 $74,881
2011 $80,551
2016 $95,099 27.0%
2006 $38,753
2011 $39,831
2016 $46,074 18.9%
Average Household Income Before Taxes
(2006 - 2016)
All Households
Owner Households
Renter Households
Source: CMHC Housing Portal Census - Oxford County
Page 82 of 164
Census Data Key Indicators:
Income Growth
•Overall, incomes have increased 17%
from 2011 to 2016. Most of this can
be attributed to the growth in high-
income households.
•Those earning over $100,000 has
grown from a total of 25% of
households in 2011 to nearly 32% as
of 2016.
•The four middle categories have had
minimal change.
•The decrease in those earning less
than $20k does not signal affordability
improving (inflation, minimum wage,
etc.).
7
Page 83 of 164
Incomes in Oxford County -
Deciles
8
Decile Group All Households Income
(2021 estimate)^
Renter Income (2021
estimate)^
1st $26,600 $16,500
2nd $41,000 $23,100
3rd $53,600 $29,700
4th $66,500 $37,800
5th $81,300 $46,000
6th $96,600 $54,600
7th $114,600 $65,600
8th $138,100 $81,200
9th $175,300 $106,700Low IncomeModerate IncomeHigh IncomeHousehold Incomes in Oxford County
Notes/Source: Provincial Policy Statement Housing Tables. ^Incomes based on 2016
Census of Canada, inflated using Consumer Price Index (Ontario) to estimate 2021 incomes.
•The data in this chart sorts the income of All Households
and Renter Households by income deciles. Data is
released through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing (MMAH) each year.
•Income data is based on the 2016 Census of Canada,
which is then inflated using the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) between 2016 and 2021 to estimate current income
levels.
•Using CPI does not account for actual change in income
or people that might have moved to Oxford County over
this period.
•When the 2021 census is released late-2022, the data
and analysis should be updated.
•The data further exemplifies that owners earn
significantly more than renter households across every
decile.
Page 84 of 164
Affordability Thresholds Based on
Affordable Housing Definitions
9
Decile Group All Households Income
(2021 estimate)^
Renter Income
(2021 estimate)^
Affordable
Purchase Price*
Affordable Rental
Rate (monthly)**
1st $26,600 $16,500 $97,900 $410
2nd $41,000 $23,100 $150,800 $580
3rd $53,600 $29,700 $197,200 $740
4th $66,500 $37,800 $244,600 $950
5th $81,300 $46,000 $299,100 $1,150
6th $96,600 $54,600 $355,400 $1,370
7th $114,600 $65,600 $421,600 $1,640
8th $138,100 $81,200 $508,100 $2,030
9th $175,300 $106,700 $644,900 $2,670
Household Incomes in Oxford County and Affordability Thresholds
Low IncomeModerate IncomeHigh IncomeNotes/Source: Provincial Policy Statement Housing Tables. ^Incomes based on 2016 Census of Canada, inflated using Consumer Price
Index (Ontario) to estimate 2021 incomes. *Assumes 30% of gross income is available for accommodation costs. Accommodation costs
include mortgage (25 years, 4.79% fixed 5-year rate, 5% downpayment, 1.25% property tax payment, 4.0% of loan amount for CMHC
mortgage insurance). **Assumes 30% of gross income is available for monthly rent.
•The data in this chart displays the
maximum purchase price (based on all
household incomes) and maximum
monthly rent (based on renter household
incomes) that each decile group can
afford to pay as determined by the
MMAH income data.
•In addition to affordability challenges,
other barriers to entry will include:
•Availability of units at these price
points
•Rental Housing: First and last
month rent
•Ownership Housing: Adequate
down payment, other closing costs
Page 85 of 164
Decile Group All Households Income
(2021 estimate)^
Affordable Purchase
Price*
1st $26,600 $97,900
2nd $41,000 $150,800
3rd $53,600 $197,200
4th $66,500 $244,600
5th $81,300 $299,100
6th $96,600 $355,400
7th $114,600 $421,600
8th $138,100 $508,100
9th $175,300 $644,900
Affordable Ownership Thresholds
Notes/Source: Provincial Policy Statement Housing Tables. ^Incomes based on 2016
Census of Canada, inflated using Consumer Price Index (Ontario) to estimate 2021 incomes.
*Assumes 30% of gross income is available for accommodation costs. Accommodation costs
include mortgage (25 years, 4.79% fixed 5-year rate, 5% downpayment, 1.25% property tax
payment, 4.0% of loan amount for CMHC mortgage insurance).Low IncomeModerate IncomeHigh IncomeAffordable Ownership Threshold (reported by MMAH)
•Affordable Ownership is least expensive of:
•10% below the average resale home in
the County.
•Affordable price of a home (mortgage
costs < 30% of gross income) for a
household earning in the 6th income
decile
•Average Resale Value in Oxford County
(MMAH): $525,898
•10% Below Average Resale Value:
$473,308
•Affordable Purchase price at the 6th income
decile: $355,400
•6th Income decile purchase price is the least
expensive and therefore limiting factor.
10 Limiting Factor and Oxford County Affordable Purchase Price ThresholdPage 86 of 164
Affordable Rental Threshold
11
Bach
1BR
2/3 BR
Decile Group Renter Income (2021
estimate)^
Affordable Rental Rate
(monthly)**
1st $16,500 $410
2nd $23,100 $580
3rd $29,700 $740
4th $37,800 $950
5th $46,000 $1,150
6th $54,600 $1,370
7th $65,600 $1,640
8th $81,200 $2,030
9th $106,700 $2,670Low IncomeModerate IncomeHigh IncomeAffordable Rental Thresholds
Notes/Source: Provincial Policy Statement Housing Tables. ^Incomes based on 2016
Census of Canada, inflated using Consumer Price Index (Ontario) to estimate 2021 incomes.
**Assumes 30% of gross income is available for monthly rent.
•Affordable Rental is where:
•Affordable rent (< 30% of gross
income) for a household earning at or
below the 6th income decile
•Is rented at or below the average
market rent in Oxford County (per
CMHC)
•CMHC Average Market Rent (County-wide
average as reported by MMAH –2021
requested rates by County):
•Bach: $762
•1BR: $1,062
•2BR: $1,280
•3BR: $1,111
•CMHC average market rent remains below
the affordable rent calculated at the 6th
income decile for all unit types.
•Oxford County affordable housing units are
typically rented at 80% of the above CMHC
rates.
Page 87 of 164
12
2.0: Housing Available
to Oxford County
Households
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
12
Page 88 of 164
2.1: Ownership
Resale Housing
13
Existing homes being purchased within
Oxford County. This existing housing stock
is referred to as Resale Housing.
Page 89 of 164
Ownership Housing
–Resale Data (YTD
Dec 2021)
•Average Price:
•Single-Detached: $938,795 (up 340% since 2012, 43% since last year)
•Semi-Detached: $775,041 (up 279% since 2012, 40% since last year)
•Condo Apartment: $545,151 (up 293% since 2012, 24% since last
year)
•Median Days on Market:
•Single-Detached: 2022 –7 days | 2020 –16 days | 2012 –71 days
•Semi-Detached: 2022 –7 days | 2020 –19 days | 2012 –52 days
•Condo Apartment: 2022 –7 days | 2020 –19 days | 2012 –50 days
•All homes types are increasing in price rapidly, selling quickly, with decreasing
supply / months of inventory.
•While the rate of increase was modest between 2013 and 2017, a slight uptick
is noted between July 2017 and January 2020. After January 2020 (COVID-19
pandemic began in March 2020), the rate of price appreciation has increased
significantly.
•Data indicates that demand appears to be outpacing supply for all housing
types in the County, resulting in prices increasing rapidly and spending very
little time on the market with reduced inventory overall.
14
Source: Woodstock-Ingersoll and District Residential Market
Activity and MLS® Home Price Index Report February 2022
Graphs are all housing types:
Page 90 of 164
Ownership Housing –Resale Data (YTD
Dec 2021)
15
•Months of inventory and average days on market is also low in each municipality, particularly
Ingersoll and Woodstock.
•Pricing includes all home types (including large lots, small farm properties, etc.).
•Resale pricing is escalating quickly (29% -48%) over the past year in all areas of Oxford.
•Pricing range significantly depending on location, quality, home/lot size.
•Average values are highest in rural communities dominated primarily by larger homes.
Page 91 of 164
Ownership Housing –
Resale Listing Price
Ranges (source:
realtor.ca)
16
•Detached:
•Most range between $800k -$1.5M
•Some smaller homes are less than $800k
•Some luxury properties are over $2M
•Semi-Detached:
•Small number of listings, mostly in Woodstock. Typically range between
$500k -$750k
•Townhome:
•Listings primarily in Woodstock. Typically range between $450k -$900k
•Apartment:
•Very few options in Oxford County. Pricing typically ranges from $300k -
$700k.
•Pricing influenced by age, quality, location, and condo fees.
Page 92 of 164
2.2: Ownership
New Sale
Housing
•New homes being purchased from actively
marketing pre-construction projects across
Oxford County. These include new
subdivisions, new condominium buildings,
and other similar new housing projects.
•This ‘under development’ housing stock is
referred to as New Sale Housing.
Page 93 of 164
Ownership Housing –New Sale
Single/Semi-Detached Homes
•On average, new single/semi-detached homes in Oxford County are selling for an average
of just under $910,000. By unit type, the following average sale prices are shown:
•Two-Bedroom Homes: $720,000
•Three-Bedroom Homes: $980,000
•New homes in Woodstock are selling at the highest pricing in Oxford County. Woodstock
also has the highest number of projects. This is due to Woodstock being the largest urban
municipality in the County, with higher incomes and more employment opportunities.
18
WOODSTOCK
Avg. $1,120,000
TILLSONBURG
Avg. $1,100,000
INGERSOLL
Avg. $730,729
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Page 94 of 164
New Single/Semi-Detached Homes -Woodstock
19
•Woodstock offers the most expensive pricing for new single/semi-detached homes in Oxford County
•On average, two-bedroom houses are selling for $785,000 and three-bedroom houses are selling for $1.12M. However, homes across these projects varied widely in pricing across the following ranges:
•Two-Bedroom Homes: $610,000 to $980,000
•Three-Bedroom Homes: $775,900 to $1,400,000
New Projects in Woodstock:
Havelock Corners
Avg. $1,220,000
Parkridge Preserve
Avg. $995,000
Rembrandt Estates
Avg. $745,000
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Page 95 of 164
New Single/Semi-Detached Homes -Tillsonburg
20
•Tillsonburg offers the second most expensive pricing for new single/semi-detached
homes in Oxford County
•There were limited projects at the time of the survey, which only had three-bedroom
homes available
•On average, these three-bedroom houses are selling for $1,100,000.
Northcrest Estates
Avg. $1,100,000
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Page 96 of 164
New Single/Semi-Detached Homes -Ingersoll
21
•For new projects, Ingersoll offered the most affordable housing options of the three
urban municipalities.
•On average, two-bedroom houses are selling for $605,000 and three-bedroom houses
are selling for $730,000.
•Homes are generally ranging from the mid-$600k to over $800k depending on size,
housing type, and location.
New Projects in Ingersoll:
Golf Estates Ingersoll
Avg. $700,000
Harrisview
Avg. $710,000
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Page 97 of 164
Ownership Housing –New Sale
Townhouses
•On average, new single/semi-detached homes in Oxford County are selling for an average
of just under $810,000. By unit type, the following average sale prices are shown:
•Two-Bedroom Townhouses: $700,000
•Three-Bedroom Townhouses: $860,000
•New townhouses in Woodstock are selling at the highest pricing in Oxford County.
Woodstock also has a higher number of new projects marketing compared to Tillsonburg
and Ingersoll.
22
WOODSTOCK
Avg. $905,000
Three New Projects
TILLSONBURG
Avg. $730,500
One New Project
INGERSOLL
Avg. $635,000
One New Project
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Page 98 of 164
New Townhouses -Woodstock
23
•Woodstock offers the most expensive pricing for new townhouses in Oxford County.
•Of the new townhouse projects marketing, pricing ranges between $700K to over $1.1M.
•On average, two-bedroom townhouses are selling for $760,000 and three-bedroom houses are selling for $950,000. Townhouses across these projects varied in pricing across the following ranges:
•Two-Bedroom Homes: $700,000 to $799,900
•Three-Bedroom Homes: $699,900 to $1,115,000
New Projects in Woodstock:
Anthlone Towns
Avg. $765,000
167 Huntingford Trail
Avg. $980,000
Havelock Corners –Towns
Avg. $1,060,000
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Page 99 of 164
New Townhouses -Tillsonburg
24
•Tillsonburg offers the second most expensive pricing for townhouses in Oxford County
•There were limited new projects at the time of the survey, which had two and three-
bedroom units available
•On average, these units are selling for $730,500, however pricing ranges between mid-
$600K for the two-bedroom units and mid-$700K for the three-bedroom units
Northcrest Towns
Avg. $730,500
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Page 100 of 164
New Townhouses -Ingersoll
25
•There were limited new townhouse projects at the time of the survey.
•Pricing averaged $635,000 for new townhouse units, ranging between two and three-
bedroom layouts.
•On average, the two-bedroom units are selling at $580,000 and the three-bedroom
units are selling at $690,000.
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Golf Estates Ingersoll -Towns
Avg. $635,000
Page 101 of 164
New Condominium Apartments
•At the time of our survey, Woodstock was the focus of condominium apartments due to
lack of supply in other areas of the County. The following information therefore
represents actively marketing units in Woodstock.
•On average, the available condominium apartments are selling for an average of just
under $615,000. By unit type, the following average sale prices are shown:
•Two-Bedroom Apartments: $580,000
•Three-Bedroom Apartments: $750,000
26
New Condominium Apartment Projects in Woodstock
34 Brock Street Metcalf Condos
Page 102 of 164
New Condominium Apartments
27
Ownership Data -Woodstock, Ontario
Building Typology Average Price
1B 2B 3B
New Condominium Apartments -$578,450 $750,000
New Townhouses -$758,300 $951,389
New Single/Semi-Detached Homes -$786,683 $1,120,644
Source: Project Marketing Materials.
Ownership Data -Tillsonburg, Ontario
Building Typology Average Price
1B 2B 3B
New Condominium Apartments ---
New Townhouses -$673,333 $756,429
New Single/Semi-Detached Homes --$1,100,000
Source: Project Marketing Materials.
Ownership Data -Ingersoll, Ontario
Building Typology Average Price
1B 2B 3B
New Condominium Apartments ---
New Townhouses -$579,900 $689,000
New Single/Semi-Detached Homes -$605,729 $730,729
Source: Project Marketing Materials.
It is important to note that the
ownership data provided is based
on new units currently available for
sale or units that have recently
sold. Therefore, the data does not
capture the entirety of pricing for
each of the new projects since
they began selling. Average
pricing thresholds by municipality
may be impacted based on limited
availability.
Page 103 of 164
2.3: Rental Housing Market
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 28
Page 104 of 164
29
•CMHC Average Market Rent (“AMR”) provides a high-level estimate of
average rents in a municipality. It includes all rental units, newly leased
and long-term “rent controlled” units. It is not indicative of actual Market
Rents.
•The CMHC data provides the vacancy rate of rental apartments, which
indicates availability and “choice” in the market. CMHC also provides
data on the rental apartment universe, which identifies how the rental
supply has grown or decreased over time.
•CMHC rental data is only available for Woodstock, Ingersoll, and
Tillsonburg (see slides to follow).
•In all three municipalities, the vacancy rate is currently well below 4%
(considered balanced conditions) and has been below 3% since 2015.
Average rents have also been increasing by an average of 3% since
1990, with more rapid appreciation (~5%) occurring over the past five
years.
•The rental apartment universe has increased measurably in Woodstock,
growing by 830 rental apartments between 1990 and 2021 (most of this
growth has occurred over the past five years). Conversely, the rental
apartment universe in Tillsonburg and Ingersoll has been static. These
figures include the total net change in rental apartments as reported by
CMHC and include the addition of rental homes as well as rental homes
that have been removed from apartment universe (i.e. converted to
condominium, buildings demolished and replaced with new rental units,
basement apartments being removed, etc.).
•Most of the growth in rental apartments since 1990 has been one-
bedroom units, followed by two-bedroom units. Three-bedroom units
have decreased over this period.
•The rental market is therefore characterized as very tight (i.e. limited
vacancy) with eroding affordability (i.e. increasing rents). While
Woodstock has expanded the rental apartment supply, vacancy remains
low with rents continuing to increase, indicating supply is not meeting
demand.
Rental Housing –
CMHC
Average Market Rent
and Vacancy Rate
Page 105 of 164
30
Rental Housing –CMHC Average Market Rent and Vacancy Rate WOODSTOCK
Bedroom Type Average Market Rent Vacancy Rate
Bachelor ****
One-Bedroom $1,098 2.7%
Two-Bedroom $1,284 0.8%
Three-Bedroom $1,213 1.1%
Total $1,216 1.4%
Woodstock Average Market Rent and Vacancy Rate October 2021
Source: CMHC Housing Portal
Page 106 of 164
31
Rental Housing –CMHC Average
Market Rent and Vacancy Rate
TILLSONBURG
Bedroom Type Average Market Rent Vacancy Rate
Bachelor $713 0.0%
One-Bedroom $855 2.8%
Two-Bedroom $1,088 1.7%
Three-Bedroom $1,133 **
Total $994 2.4%
Tillsonburg Average Market Rent and Vacancy Rate October 2021
Source: CMHC Housing Portal
Page 107 of 164
32
Rental Housing –CMHC Average
Market Rent and Vacancy Rate
INGERSOLL
Bedroom Type Average Market Rent Vacancy Rate
Bachelor ****
One-Bedroom^$775 **
Two-Bedroom $837 1.6%
Three-Bedroom ****
Total $816 1.3%
Source: CMHC Housing Portal ^2020 value
Ingersoll Average Market Rent and Vacancy Rate October 2021
Page 108 of 164
Rental Housing –
CMHC Average Market
Rent
•100% and 80% of the CMHC
Average Market Rent (AMR) in
Oxford County.
•These are typically affordable
benchmarks for new affordable
housing projects.
•These are NOT the rents one would
expect to pay to secure a new unit.
•True market rents are explored to
follow.
33
Bedroom Type
CMHC Average
Market Rent (AMR)80% CMHC AMR
Bachelor $762 $610
One-Bedroom $1,062 $850
Two-Bedroom $1,280 $1,024
Three-Bedroom $1,111 $889
Total $1,157 $926
Oxford County Average Market Rent 2021 (Apartments)
Source: Provincial Policy Statement Housing Table
Page 109 of 164
Purpose-Built Rental Apartments
•On average, new (built generally within the last 5 years) purpose-built rental apartments in
Oxford County are renting at an average of just under $1,600 per month. Currently, only
Woodstock and Tillsonburg have “new” purpose-built rental housing, which average around:
•In contrast, older purpose-built rental projects across the three urban municipalities on
average are leasing at:
Rental Housing –New
34
New Purpose-Built Rental
One-Bedroom Apartments: $1,400
Two-Bedroom Apartments: $1,775
Three-Bedroom Apartments: $1,975
Older Purpose-Built Rental
One-Bedroom Apartments: $1,250
Two-Bedroom Apartments: $1,585
Three-Bedroom Apartments: $1,950
Page 110 of 164
New Purpose-Built Rental Apartments
35
•Woodstock and Tillsonburg are currently the only municipalities in Oxford County with
new available purpose-built rental apartments.
•We surveyed four new projects in Woodstock and four new projects in Tillsonburg. The
most expensive project surveyed was a high-end building in Tillsonburg, however
pricing across the other seven projects was similar.
Sally Creek –Average $1,950 per month
Source: Project Marketing Materials
TillsonburgWoodstock
Oxford Estates –Average $2,100 per month
Page 111 of 164
•On average, newer townhouses in Oxford County are
renting at an average of just under $2,400 per month.
By unit type, the following average monthly rents are
shown:
•New rental townhouses in Woodstock and Tillsonburg
are leasing at similar rates across all unit types.
•The older townhouse units across the three urban
municipalities on average are leasing at:
Rental Housing –Townhomes
36
One-Bedroom Townhouses: $1,850
Two-Bedroom Townhouses : $2,200
Three-Bedroom Townhouses : $2,600
Two-Bedroom Apartments: $1,600
Three-Bedroom Apartments: $1,850
Source: Project Marketing Materials
NEW: Pember’s Walk Townhouses -Woodstock
OLD: Thames Garden Townhouses -Ingersoll
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Page 112 of 164
•Basement apartments were also surveyed to determine the full range of rental housing
available in Oxford County. Units listed in Woodstock, Ingersoll, and Tillsonburg were
available at an average of just under $1,500 per month in rent. By unit type, the following
was available, on average:
Rental Housing –Basement Apartments
37
One-Bedroom: $1,400 Two-Bedroom: $1,785
Source: Project Marketing Materials
Woodstock Ingersoll
Page 113 of 164
Rental Data -Woodstock, Ontario
Building Typology Average Rent
1B 2B 3B
New Purpose Built Rental Apartments $1,409 $1,802 $1,910
Older Purpose Built Rental
Apartments $1,298 $1,632 $2,393
New Rental Townhouses $1,856 $2,153 $2,498
Older Rental Townhouses -$1,609 $1,738
Basement Apartments $1,288 $1,700 -
Single/Semi-Detached Homes $2,000 $2,350 $3,025
Source: Project Marketing Materials.
Rental Housing –Rental Data Tables
38
It is important to note that the rental data
provided is based on units currently available
for lease. Average pricing thresholds by
municipality may be impacted based on
limited availability.
Rental Data -Tillsonburg, Ontario
Building Typology Average Rent
1B 2B 3B
New Purpose Built Rental Apartments $1,469 $1,790 $2,000
Older Purpose Built Rental Apartments $1,169 $1,349 $1,421
New Rental Townhouses -$2,250 $2,674
Older Rental Townhouses -$1,700 $2,150
Basement Apartments $1,450 --
Single/Semi-Detached Homes -$2,500 $2,848
Source: Project Marketing Materials.
Rental Data -Ingersoll, Ontario
Building Typology Average Rent
1B 2B 3B
New Purpose Built Rental Apartments ---
Older Purpose Built Rental
Apartments $1,148 $1,295 $1,500
New Rental Townhouses ---
Older Rental Townhouses -$1,425 $1,655
Basement Apartments $1,600 $1,950 -
Single/Semi-Detached Homes -$2,550 $2,800
Source: Project Marketing Materials.
Page 114 of 164
3.0: Affordability
Gap Analysis
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 39
Page 115 of 164
Affordability Gap Analysis
•The following tables present the income deciles (by tenure) and affordability
thresholds of each decile group demonstrated earlier in this report (Page 9). It
also illustrates the typical price/rent of housing options in Oxford County as presented in this report.
•Red indicates the home is unaffordable and Green indicates the home is affordable to that decile group.
•As illustrated, most new ownership homes are unaffordable to households below the 9th income decile. Most rental homes are unaffordable to those below the 8th
income decile, only a one-bedroom apartment might be affordable to those in the
6th income decile.
•Also of note, 100% of the CMHC AMR is only affordable to renter households above the 5th / 6th income decile (important when selecting an affordability target for any new housing program).
•Page 38 & 39 provide a breakdown of the affordability gap analysis by municipality –for Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and Ingersoll.
40
Page 116 of 164
Ownership
Affordability
Gap Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
$97,900 $150,800 $197,200 $244,600 $299,100 $355,400 $421,600 $508,100 $644,900
Housing Type Purchase Price
Blandford-Blenheim $1,005,000
East Zorra Tavistock $828,000
Ingersoll $832,746
Norwich $972,780
SW Oxford $1,283,463
Woodstock $791,235
Zorra $1,030,911
Tillsonburg $766,625
Oxford County $845,936
Single-Family New (High)$1,120,644
Single-Family New (Low)$786,683
Condo Apartment New 2BR $578,450
Condo Apartment New 3BR $750,000
Townhose New 2BR $758,300
Townhose New 2BR $951,389
Single-Family New $1,100,000
Condo Apartment New 2BR
Condo Apartment New 3BR
Townhose New 2BR $673,333
Townhose New 2BR $756,429
Single-Family New (High)$760,141
Single-Family New (Low)$659,060
Condo Apartment New 2BR
Condo Apartment New 3BR
Townhose New 2BR $579,900
Townhose New 2BR $689,000
Data Unavailable
Average New Sale Price - Tillsonburg
Data Unavailable
Data Unavailable
Average New Sale Price - Ingersoll
Data Unavailable
Ownership Housing Affordability Gap Analysis
Income Decile
Affordability Threshold
Average Resale Price
Average New Sale Price - Woodstock
Unaffordable
Affordable
41
Page 117 of 164
Rental
Affordability Gap
Analysis
Unaffordable
Affordable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
$410 $580 $740 $950 $1,150 $1,370 $1,640 $2,030 $2,670
Housing Type Monthly Rental Rate
WOODSTOCK
New Apartment 1BR $1,409
New Apartment 2BR $1,802
New Apartment 3BR $1,910
Older Apartment 1BR $1,298
Older Apartment 2BR $1,632
Older Apartment 3BR $2,393
New Townhome 1BR $1,856
New Townhome 2BR $2,153
New Townhome 3BR $2,498
Older Townhome 2BR $1,609
Older Townhome 3BR $1,738
Basement Apartment 1BR $1,288
Basement Apartment 2BR $1,700
Single/Semi-Detached 2BR $2,350
Single/Semi-Detached 3BR $3,025
TILLSONBURG
New Apartment 1BR $1,469
New Apartment 2BR $1,790
New Apartment 3BR $2,000
Older Apartment 1BR $1,169
Older Apartment 2BR $1,349
Older Apartment 3BR $1,421
New Townhome 2BR $2,250
New Townhome 3BR $2,674
Older Townhome 2BR $1,700
Older Townhome 3BR $2,150
Basement Apartment 1BR $1,450
Market Single/Semi-Detached 2BR $2,500
Market Single/Semi-Detached 3BR $2,850
INGERSOLL
Older Apartment 1BR $1,148
Older Apartment 2BR $1,295
Older Apartment 3BR $1,500
Older Townhome 2BR $1,425
Older Townhome 3BR $1,655
Basement Apartment 1BR $1,600
Basement Apartment 2BR $1,950
Market Single/Semi-Detached 2BR $2,550
Market Single/Semi-Detached 3BR $2,800
Rental Housing Affordability Gap Analysis
Income Decile
Affordability Threshold
42
Page 118 of 164
Rental Affordability Gap Analysis –CMHC Thresholds
Unaffordable
Affordable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
$410 $580 $740 $950 $1,150 $1,370 $1,640 $2,030 $2,670
Housing Type Monthly Rental Rate
80% CMHC AMR 1BR $850
80% CMHC AMR 2BR $1,024
80% CMHC AMR 3BR $889
CMHC AMR 1BR $1,062
CMHC AMR 2BR $1,280
CMHC AMR 3BR $1,111
Rental Housing Affordability Gap Analysis
Income Decile
Affordability Threshold
CMHC Average Market Rent
Type 2
43
Page 119 of 164
4.0: Who are the
Households Facing
Affordability Challenges
44
Page 120 of 164
Core Housing Need -Definition
45
•CMHC has utilized census data to assess households in Core Housing Need
within municipalities across Canada.
•A household is in Core Housing Need if its housing does not meet one or
more standards for housing:
•Affordability: Household is spending more than 30% of before-tax
household income.
•Adequacy: Home requires major repairs.
•Suitability: Home size is not adequate to the household size (i.e. family of
5 living in a 2-bedroom home).
•Adequate housing does not require any major repairs, according to
residents. Suitable housing has enough bedrooms for the size and
make-up of resident households. Affordable housing costs less than 30
per cent of before-tax household income.
•In addition to providing total count of households experiencing Core Housing
Need, CMHC provides specific data points to help identify the characteristics
and socioeconomic indicators of these households.
•The following section provides an overview of this data to help Oxford County
understand the needs of those experiencing affordability challenges.
•All data comes from the Canadian Census and CMHC Housing Portal. Data is
available for only Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and Ingersoll.
Page 121 of 164
Households in
Core Housing
Need -% of
Households
•Households in core housing need have mostly been increasing every census period since 2006. In Woodstock, the number of households in Core Housing Need decreased between 2011 and 2016.
•There are significantly more renter households in Core Housing Need than owners.
•Ownership households in core housing need has been fairly stable between 2006 and 2016. Housing price increases since this time has likely shifted this finding.
•Data is similar to findings across the province, where renter households face larger affordability challenges relative to owner households.
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 46
Page 122 of 164
Households in
Core Housing
Need –Housing
Standard
•Core Housing Need is more pronounced for renter households across all three categories.
•Affordability is the most common factor leading a household to be in Core Housing Need.
Adequacy and Suitability are also significant contributors for renter households being in Core
Housing Need.
•0% of the surveyed households in core housing need indicate that affordability is the only
challenge. This means these households are not only spending too much on housing costs, but
also the home is either not suitable or adequate for their needs.
•The presence of older apartment buildings often leads to higher proportions of adequacy and
suitability, which are common in all three municipalities, but more prevalent in Ingersoll and
Tillsonburg.
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 47
Page 123 of 164
Core Housing Need –Household Characteristics
48
Municipality
Tenure Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
Total - % Households in Core Housing Need 3%26%3%29%4%30%
Age of Primary Household Maintainer
15 to 24 years 6%24%0%24%0%31%
25 to 34 years 1%22%2%18%4%27%
35 to 44 years 2%24%0%25%2%24%
45 to 54 years 3%23%2%32%2%20%
55 to 64 years 5%27%4%29%6%28%
65 years and over 4%31%5%41%4%39%
Couple with children 1%8%0%7%1%10%
Couple without children 2%12%2%18%1%8%
Lone-parent household 8%43%5%40%9%35%
One-person household 7%33%9%39%12%42%
Household has at least one senior (65 or older)4%31%5%42%4%37%
Household has at least one child less than 18 years old 3%27%1%23%2%28%
Non-immigrant 3%26%3%28%4%30%
Immigrant 5%25%4%39%4%24%
Recent immigrants (landed 2011-2016)0%30%----
Household has at least one person with activity limitations 4%31%4%34%5%34%
Aboriginal households 0%17%0%36%0%35%
Households in Core Housing Need by Household Characteristics (2016)
Woodstock Ingersoll Tillsonburg
Source: CMHC Housing Portal Core Housing Need Analysis for Woodstock, Ingersoll, Tillsonburg. Red indicates variable is 5% above
overall average for tenure.
Renter households have higher incidence of
core housing need across all characteristics.
Key renter groups include:
•Older households (65 and over) and
households with at least one-senior.
•Lone-parent and one-person
households.
•Immigrants and recent immigrants.
•Households with activity limitations.
While certain owner groups will also face
affordability challenges, clearly a larger need to
address renter households across a variety of
incomes and characteristics.
Lone parent and one-person owner
households appear to be facing large
challenges.
Rising rents and home prices since 2016 are
likely to alter this data and the findings.
Page 124 of 164
5.0: Growth Trends and
Forecasts
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 49
Page 125 of 164
Strong Population Growth (Canadian Census)
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 50
•Population growth has been strong in Oxford County between 2001 and 2016. Most of this growth (95%) has occurred in the three urban communities of Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and Ingersoll.
•Woodstock has accommodated 64% of total population growth in the County.
•Mobility data from the County’s Municipal Comprehensive Review indicates that growth is being driven primarily by migrants from other communities in Ontario, particularly the GTA.
•Aside from university age individuals, Oxford County successfully attracts all other age groups, particularly seniors and families seeking more affordable low-density housing.
Area Municipality 2001 2006 2011 2016 2001 - 2016 Share of Growth
2001-2016
Woodstock 35,160 37,360 38,810 42,040 6,880 64%
Tillsonburg 14,610 15,370 15,730 16,310 1,700 16%
Ingersoll 11,410 12,190 12,490 13,110 1,700 16%
Blandford-Blenheim 7,500 7,200 7,560 7,600 100 1%
East Zorra-Tavistock 7,170 7,270 7,030 7,330 160 1%
Norwich 10,890 10,870 11,020 11,310 420 4%
SW Oxford 8,090 7,870 7,750 7,880 -210 -2%
Zorra 8,370 8,420 8,280 8,360 -10 0%
Oxford County 103,200 106,550 108,670 113,940 10,740 100%
Oxford County Population Growth by Local Municipality
Source: Hemson Consulting Oxford County Municipal Comprehensive Review
Page 126 of 164
Forecasted Population
Growth Expected to be
Strong (Oxford MCR
Data)
51
•Population growth has accelerated significantly
since 2016 and expected to remain above
previous growth trends to 2046.
•Growth pressure being driven by:
•Households in the GTA and other nearby
municipalities (e.g. London, K-W) seeking
affordable home ownership.
•Oxford County’s adjacency to major
employment centers.
•Expanding employment opportunities
within Oxford County.
•Continued expansion of remote work.
•Appeal of small-town living
•Diversity of housing types
Page 127 of 164
Population and Housing Growth for Each Local
Municipality (Oxford MCR Data)
52
•Oxford will grow by 18,320 households
and 47,010 people between 2016 and
2046.
•In addition to population growth
pressures identified on the previous
page, an aging population and declining
household size is also driving increased
demand for housing.
•Like previous growth trends, most of the
growth is expected within the three
urban communities:
•Woodstock: 51%
•Tillsonburg: 13%
•Ingersoll: 12%
•Remaining 25% scattered across
the other communities
Page 128 of 164
Historical and
Forecasted Growth by
Housing Type (Oxford
MCR Data)
•Growth has historically been dominated by single and semi-detached homes. It is
largely expected that this will continue looking forward, as Oxford County will
remain an important generator of family-oriented housing types at more affordable
pricing relative to the GTA and other nearby municipalities (e.g. London, Waterloo).
•It is expected that townhomes will become more popular over the forecast period
as the market responds to various market and planning changes (e.g. land price
increases, more efficient building form, higher density growth targets, providing
more affordable homes relative to larger single-detached lots, etc.).
•Apartments are expected to remain around 20% of housing growth looking forward.
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 53
Page 129 of 164
Forecasted Growth by Housing
Type for Each Local
Municipality (Oxford MCR
Data)
•Housing types are forecasted to vary across the local
municipalities.
•Single-family homes will continue to be the primary
housing typology in each local municipality.
•Apartments are projected to be most common in
Woodstock, followed by Tillsonburg and Ingersoll.
Modest apartment activity is expected in other areas
of the county.
•Current development trends (building permits,
applications) support these findings.
•Through the MCR, Oxford County is expanding the
land supply available for residential development to
meet this forecasted demand. Immediate boundary
expansions in Woodstock and Ingersoll were
identified as necessary.
Area Municipality Single Semi Row Apartment Total Average per
Year
Woodstock 4,270 1,260 1,900 1,930 9,360 312
Tillsonburg 1,600 50 210 550 2,410 80
Ingersoll 1,300 200 220 540 2,260 75
Blandford-Blenheim 580 20 90 70 760 25
East Zorra-Tavistock 890 50 220 140 1,300 43
Norwich 670 20 130 240 1,060 35
SW Oxford 450 20 20 30 520 17
Zorra 500 10 30 90 630 21
Oxford County 10,260 1,630 2,820 3,590 18,300 610
Oxford County Housing Growth by Type for each Local Municipality (2016-2046)
Source: Hemson Consulting Oxford County Municipal Comprehensive Review
Area Municipality Single Semi Row Apartment
Woodstock 46%13%20%21%
Tillsonburg 66%2%9%23%
Ingersoll 58%9%10%24%
Blandford-Blenheim 76%3%12%9%
East Zorra-Tavistock 68%4%17%11%
Norwich 63%2%12%23%
SW Oxford 87%4%4%6%
Zorra 79%2%5%14%
Oxford County 56%9%15%20%
Oxford County Housing Growth by Type for each Local Municipality
Source: Hemson Consulting Oxford County Municipal Comprehensive Review
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 54
Page 130 of 164
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 55
Page 131 of 164
Oxford County 10 Year Shelter
Plan
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 56
•The Oxford County Shelter Plan sets objectives and targets for a ten-year time frame (2014-
2024) to support the vision of affordable housing for all. The plan was most recently updated
in 2019.
•The plan identified many of the same growth and forecast characteristics as the MCR
exercise.
•Large growth in population and housing expected to continue.
•Appreciation in the ownership and rental housing market expected to continue.
•Growth has largely occurred in Woodstock, Tillsonburg, and Ingersoll, which is
expected to continue. Diversity in housing type (i.e. apartments) largely located in
these communities.
•A large segment of the County’s population cannot afford market ownership and rental
homes.
•The plan identifies a significant unmet need for shelters and transitional housing, as well as
150 supportive homes, 2,000 rent-geared-to-income (RGI) homes, and 1,000 affordable
rental homes, which has increased since the plan was last reviewed in 2019.
•Vulnerable groups most in need of housing include those with mental health needs or
addictions, youth, those on social assistance, seniors, the working poor, Indigenous groups,
and survivors of domestic abuse.
•The Oxford County 10 Year Shelter Plan seeks to achieve the following outcomes:
•Increase affordable rental housing supply
•Preserve and optimize the existing housing supply
•Reduce chronic homelessness
•Increase supportive housing
•Increase rent supplement units in the community
Page 132 of 164
Oxford County Housing Continuum
57
Page 133 of 164
Targets and Progress on
Affordable Housing Targets
•On June 10th, 2015, Oxford County Council established an annual target of creating 50 new affordable units every year. This target was established through the 10 Year Shelter Plan and supported through the 5-year update.
•Since 2007, County Council has approved a total of 30 affordable housing projects totaling 587 affordable units (average of 40 units per year over this period).
•These projects were made possible through a funding commitment of $23.5M from the Federal and Provincial government and an additional $10.7M in County funding (excluding the value of development charge exemptions).
•Since 2015, Oxford County has exceeded the 50-unit affordability target.
•The depth of affordability has typically ranged between 80% and 100% of the CMHC AMR. Buildings have also included a mix of affordable and market units, with 83% of the total yield being affordable.
•Most of this activity has occurred through local private and non-profit housing providers.
•Affordable projects have been a mix of apartments, stacked townhomes, townhomes, and other single-family formats.
•All projects are affordable rental aside from a Habitat for Humanity project in Blandford-Blenheim (2 semi-detached units).
•Since 2007, a total of 171 families in Oxford County have received down payment assistance loans through the Home Ownership Program to a total of $1,977,005.
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 58
Page 134 of 164
Characteristics of
New Approved
Affordable Housing
Projects (2007-2022)
•This data includes all newly constructed affordable homes, which includes the 587 affordable homes identified on the previous
page, 2 of which were affordable ownership units (developed by Habitat for Humanity) and 585 affordable rental homes. The 171 families assisted through Oxford’s Home Ownership Program are not included here.
•86% of the affordable units constructed in Oxford County since 2007 has been in the thee urban municipalities, with Woodstock
accommodating the majority of this activity (68%).
•One-bedroom units have been the most prevalent affordable housing unit delivered, followed by two-bedroom suites. Bachelor and three-bedroom units have represented a small proportion of new activity. A reflection of the above, singles and seniors
(typically requiring one-bedroom units) have been the primary tenant targeted through new projects. Projects targeted
specifically to seniors have represented over 40% of all new affordable housing supply.
•Just over 6% of all new affordable units have been accessible. Some new projects have incorporated social support and
services.
•Parking has been provided at each development typically at a ratio of 1 to 2 spaces per unit. Some projects in more urban settings have proceeded with no or limited parking.
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 59
Page 135 of 164
RGI Wait List
Characteristics
•There are approximately 2,400 households on the County’s wait list for RGI affordable housing. The has been steadily growing over the past decade as affordability and growth pressures continue.
•The majority of households are seeking housing in Woodstock (69%), with almost all of the wait list concentrated in the three main municipalities (driven by the fact that this is where the majority of RGI housing is located).
•Nearly half of the wait list are from households aged 25-45, with seniors representing 16%.
•Nearly 62% of the wait list are seeking a one-bedroom / bachelor unit. Less than 6% are seeking large family size homes over 4-bedrooms.
•Wait-list represents County and non-profit asset data. Wait-list for the non-RGI affordable housing is unavailable.
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 60
Page 136 of 164
Affordable Housing (80% AMR) Demand Characteristics
A wait-list is not held for the Affordable Housing stock, however, Oxford County indicates the following:
•Page 59 illustrates the characteristics of new affordable housing projects in Oxford County. This housing is largely offered at 80% of the CMHC AMR.
•Recent projects have focused on one-bedroom units designed for senior households (65+).
•All new projects have been popular with no vacancy. Demand for affordable housing continues to outpace supply.
•Income threshold is currently $38,178 for a household to be eligible for this housing, which is approximately 60% of the median income for the County as reported in the 2016 Census. As illustrated on Page 9, this corresponds roughly with the 4th income decile for rental households.
•As identified on page 43, 80% of the CMHC AMR is affordable to households generally above the 4th/5th income decile. Those falling below this threshold will either be forced to pay more than 30% of their household income on shelter costs or join the lengthy wait list for RGI housing.
•The current wait time for RGI housing for the chorological wait list is at minimum several years.
•There is an increasing need for supports, along with affordable units (i.e. the needs of daily living, assistance with children, employment support).
61
Page 137 of 164
7.0: Findings and Direction
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited 62
Page 138 of 164
Overall Findings
•The data indicates that much of the housing in Oxford County is unaffordable to many households in the municipality.
•For ownership housing, it appears that high-income individuals from other parts of Ontario are moving to Oxford County, which is driving
up prices and competition for a limited supply of housing. As home prices rise, existing owners are also likely using this equity growth to
move to a larger / more expensive home. Other macro factors are also causing home prices to rise (low interest rates, strengthening
demand, insufficient housing supply across Southern Ontario, financialization of housing, and others).
•Owners are also more likely to spend over 30% of their gross household income on a home in order to “enter the market”, believing that
their equity commitment will pay off down the road.
•Renters are also facing significant affordability challenges. Outside of a bachelor/1br apartment, rental apartments and rental single-family
homes are unaffordable to roughly 70% of all rental households in the municipality. Unlike owners, most renters will overpay for housing,
due to lack of choice, without any potential corresponding benefit.
•Lack of choice and supply are two key factors driving rental housing unaffordability, which is unlikely to improve without the introduction of
new market and affordable supply.
•When selecting an affordability target, it is important to note that 80% -100% of the CMHC AMR is out of reach for many renter
households. At the same time, the wait list for RGI housing is over 2,000 households and growing.
•These findings should be revised and reassessed when the 2021 census data is released Q4 2022 to better reflect current incomes in the
County.
63
Page 139 of 164
Ownership Housing Needs and Strategies
•Oxford County is rapidly growing, and expected to continue to grow looking forward. Overall, it appears that this growth, and corresponding demand for housing,
is outpacing housing supply. The focus of growth is expected to follow historical trends and concentrate in the three urban municipalities.
•There are significant supply/demand gaps observed in the ownership market, with price growth exceeding income growth. For households entering the market as
first time buyers, it is likely they will struggle to afford a home.
•Eroding affordability in the ownership market will impact the desirability and economic competitiveness of the County. It will also push more ‘would-be’ purchasers
into an already tight rental market, causing affordability and availability in the rental market to continue to worsen.
•It is imperative, through the ongoing Official Plan Review, that adequate land supply is made available for future development to keep pace with population growth
and housing demand.
•The best option for addressing ownership housing affordability is to ensure that realistic housing forecasts are developed and enough land is made available to
allow developers to keep pace with demand. It is equally important that a diverse range of housing, including smaller and more compact housing forms that are
affordable to a broader range of households (e.g. compact townhomes, condominium apartments, tiny homes, etc.) is delivered. This should be carefully
considered through the ongoing Municipal Comprehensive Review and Official Plan Update.
•If the market feasibility of new condominium apartments is challenged, incentives through a community improvement plan could help offset these financial hurdles.
•The County can also partner with non-profit affordable ownership groups (e.g. Options for Homes, Habitat for Humanity) to deliver housing below market rates to
qualifying households.
•The County’s down payment assistance program can also play a role in helping moderate-income households to purchase a home, as well as other similar
programs (e.g. rent-to-own). However, a focus on the supply and diversity of housing should remain the focus (i.e. demand-side solutions like 2nd mortgage
assistance in the absence of increasing supply will not affect affordability in a meaningful way aside from the small number of households that are approved
through the program).
64
Page 140 of 164
Rental Housing Needs and Strategies
•Oxford County requires more rental housing across the continuum, including RGI, Affordable, and market rental housing. Market rents continue to increase while vacancy
shrinks across the County, indicating supply is falling well short of demand. At the same time, the RGI wait list continues to grow and there is virtually no availability in the
affordable housing stock constructed over the past decade.
•It is expected that demand for rental housing will continue to increase as the population continues to grow and ownership housing remains out of reach for many households.
Without increased supply, rental rates will continue to rise and vacancy will remain low. This will continue to erode the availability of traditionally affordable rental housing to those with lower/moderate incomes.
•It is therefore imperative that the County encourage the delivery of new rental housing. New rental housing will provide more choice and availability in the market. It will also
allow those currently living in “older” rental units but have the income to rent a higher quality unit (if one was available)to do so. This is referred to as the “Filtering Process”,
freeing up an older unit at lower rent to a lower income household.
•New market-rate rental housing can be encouraged through a variety of strategies including incentive programs, encouraging the creation of second suites, and including
market and affordable units together through any new affordable housing / mixed-income developments.
•New RGI housing is also needed to address the lengthy wait list. As illustrated on Page 60, demand for new RGI housing is heavily dominated by smaller units (bachelor and
1br) and 84% of the wait-list is made up of those under the age of 65.
•New affordable housing (AMR) is also drastically needed. This housing provides a segment of the housing continuum in-between market and RGI housing, largely focusing
on those earning less than $38,178 or the 4th income decile and below.
•Virtually all of the County’s affordable housing projects over the past decade have provided affordable rents at 80% of the CMHC AMR. As illustrated on Page 43,
80% of CMHC AMR is affordable to only those in the 4th and 5th income decile. Those falling below this threshold will either be forced to pay more than 30% of their
household income on shelter costs, or join the lengthy wait list for RGI housing.
•Most of the recent investment in affordable housing has focused on one-bedroom units and senior households.
•In addition to AMR affordable housing, the County can also consider expanding the supply of RGI and even market rental housing in new developments. A broader range of
affordable housing can also be considered (i.e. 40%-80% AMR). This can be done through a mixed-income project (e.g. 30% RGI, 50% AMR, 20% market).
•New affordable housing development should also target a wider range of households. While there is an identified need for affordable seniors housing, there is also significant
need for other groups, specifically singles, young households, single-parent families, recent immigrants, those with activity limitations, those with mental health issues, immigrants, and others (Page 48, 56, 58, 59, 60).
•New affordable housing development should be focused in the three urban municipalities where access to services and day-to-day needs, infrastructure servicing, transit, and
other similar factors are readily available. These areas are also expected to experience the largest growth pressures looking forward.
•Utilizing public land, financial incentives, supporting non-profits, encouraging second suites, and other similar strategies should be pursued. Pursuing federal funding
programs through the National Housing Strategy should also be a priority. 65
Page 141 of 164
Housing Targets and Affordability Thresholds
•Oxford County’s current target of 50 affordable units has generally been met since the 10-Year Shelter Plan was adopted.
•Achieving this target required a significant funding commitment from all levels of government, including over $10M from Oxford County over the past 15 years.
•This report clearly identifies that this target is insufficient to fully address the affordability gaps across the housing continuum.
•However, increasing the target will carry additional costs and resources. Establishing a new target should align with the County’s ability to adequate fund new housing development.
•As identified on the previous page, new housing development should also begin to target a wider spectrum of households and affordability depths.
•If possible, Oxford County should increase this annual target to at least 100 units per year.
66
Page 142 of 164
Trusted advisors since 1976.
Page 143 of 164
Page 144 of 164
Page 145 of 164
Page 146 of 164
Page 147 of 164
Page 148 of 164
Page 149 of 164
Page 150 of 164
Page 151 of 164
Page 152 of 164
Page 153 of 164
Page 154 of 164
Page 155 of 164
Page 156 of 164
Page 157 of 164
Page 158 of 164
Page 159 of 164
Page 160 of 164
Page 161 of 164
Page 162 of 164
Page 163 of 164
3
Page 164 of 164