211124 Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory Committee AgendaPage 1 of 2
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory Committee
November 24, 2021
4:15 p.m.
Electronic
AGENDA
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 meeting of November 24, 2021, be adopted.
3.Minutes of the Previous Meeting
October 12, 2021
Proposed Resolution #2
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes as prepared for the Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee meeting of October 27, 2021 be adopted.
4.Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
5.General Business and Reports
5.1 Community Living Tillsonburg - Current Housing Operations/Needs/Collaboration
- Presented by Cathy Hudson, CEO
(ATTACHED)
Page 2 of 2
5.2 Tillsonburg Housing Rental Market Overview - Tillsonburg District Real Estate
Board - Presented by David Bennett, President
5.3 Oxford County Community Health Centre – Key Housing Initiatives
Presented by Abbie Boesterd, Outreach Worker, Jade Davies, Housing Stability
Team, and Kathryn Leatherland, Executive Director, Multi-Service Centre
5. 4. Consultation with External Agencies (Jan 26 meeting)
Social Planning Council of Oxford
Tillsonburg Non-Profit Housing Corporation.
5.5 Attainable Housing Strategy – County of W ellington
6.Round Table
7.Next Meeting
December, 22, 2021
8.Adjournment
Proposed Resolution #2
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the November 24, 2021 Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee meeting be adjourned at _____ p.m.
(ATTACHED)
(ATTACHED)
(ATTACHED)
Page 1 of 3
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Affordable and Attainable Housing Committee
October 27, 2021
4:00 p.m.
Electronic
MINUTES
Present: Councillor Chris Parker (Chair), Gary Green, Councillor Penny Esseltine, Lisa
Lanthier, Rebecca Smith, Cedric Tomico and Mayor Stephen Molnar.
Absent with Regrets: Collette Takacs, and Suzanne Renken.
Staff:
Kyle Pratt, CAO
Cephas Panschow, Development Commissioner
Kennedy Atkinson, Acting Executive Assistant
Staff Absent:
Geno Vanhaelewyn, CBO
1.Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 4:03 p.m.
2.Adoption of Agenda
25 Maple Lane to be added as agenda item 5.3.
Resolution #1
Moved by: Councillor Esseltine
Seconded by: Gary Green
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Affordable and Attainable Housing
Committee, October 27, 2021, be adopted.
Carried
Page 2 of 3
Cedric Tomico entered the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
3.Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Resolution #2
Moved by: Gary Green
Seconded by: Mayor Stephen Molnar
THAT the Minutes as prepared for the Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee meeting of September 22, 2021, be adopted.
Carried
4.Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest declared.
5.General Business and Reports
5.1. Consultation with External Agencies
This agenda item to be addressed in the next Committee meeting.
5.1.1 Tillsonburg and District Real Estate Board
This agenda item to be addressed in the next Committee meeting.
5.1.2. Multi-Service Centre
This agenda item to be addressed in the next Committee meeting.
5.1.3 Community Living
This agenda item to be addressed in the next Committee meeting.
Tillsonburg non profit housing will be discussed in the next two meetings.
5.2. Homelessness in Oxford County
Oxford Housing Action Committee will be in contact to talk about housing and
homelessness in Oxford County and how we can share resources.
5.3 25 Maple lane
Staff shared information on the Maple Lane property. Tillsonburg has 90 days to
respond with expression of interest and 90 days after to present offer of
purchase.
6.Round Table
Tillsonburg Non-Profit Housing Corporation’s funding application to be considered at
the next County Council meeting on November 10, 2021.
7.Next Meeting
Page 3 of 3
Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:15 p.m.
8.Adjournment
Resolution #3
Moved by: Cedric Tomico
Seconded by Rebecca Smith
THAT the October 27, 2021 Affordable and Attainable Housing Committee meeting
be adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Oxford County
Community Health
Centre
Report to Town of Tillsonburg Affordable and Attainable Housing Committee
Abbie Boesterd & Jade Davies
November 24, 2021
Oxford County Community Health Centre
Oxford County Community Health Centre is a multidisciplinary team,
including: Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, Nurses, Therapists, Outreach,
Housing Stability, Dietitian, Physiotherapist.
Oxford County Community Health Centre offers a variety of services and
programs, including: RAAM (Rapid Access Addiction Medicine), Housing
Stability, Mental Health & Addictions, Outreach Support, Mobile Health
Outreach Bus, Chronic Disease, Dietitian Services/Cooking Groups.
Serving Oxford County
The catchment area of the Oxford County Community Health Centre is all of Oxford
County. Primary Care is offered to residents of Oxford County who are members of the
identified priority populations. The priority populations are those residents living
within the identified catchment area, who are not registered with a primary healthcare
practitioner; and also experience other barriers to accessing primary healthcare.
The Emphasis is on the Following Populations:
➢Persons living with addictions
➢Persons experiencing mental health challenges
➢Families with low incomes
➢Youth
➢Isolated seniors
➢People who are not insured (do not have access to OHIP)
In addition to primary care services, we offer a range of health program to anyone who
wants to achieve their health care goals such as: meal planning, food budgeting, stressmanagement, living with a chronic condition, learning opportunities specifically for
youth.
Outreach Services in Tillsonburg
OCCHC Outreach Services are available fulltime in Tillsonburg, located at The
Livingston Centre.
Outreach can assist and support (though not limited to) the following
➢Form completion
➢System navigation
➢Advocacy
➢Information on community resources
➢Local appointment support
Mental Health & Addiction Service in
Tillsonburg
OCCHC Mental Health & Addiction Services are available fulltime in
Tillsonburg, located at The Livingston Centre.
Mental Health and Addictions Therapist is available to anyone who is over 12
years old who lives in Tillsonburg.
Mobile Health Outreach Bus
MHOB provides healthcare and outreach services to people within Oxford
County.
Many people who struggle with housing and transportation have difficulty
accessing services. The MHOB provides an opportunity to access healthcare
and outreach by bringing the services to them.
MHOB offers services in Tillsonburg every Wednesday from 11:00 am –3:00 pm,
providers involved in offering services in Tillsonburg include: OCCHC Outreach
& Nursing, Canadian Mental Health Association and Oxford County Human
Services.
Housing Stability
Community Case Management
Advocacy
Housing system navigation
Case Management
Individualized Support Plan (Identifying & working through housing related
barriers)
Support to ensure a positive tenancy (rent paid on time, maintenance requests
etc.)
Elgin-Oxford Legal Clinic referrals
Landlord mediation
Home Visits
Eviction Prevention
Rapid Rehousing
Welcome Home Kits/Furniture assistance
Transitional Housing
Transitional Housing refers to a supportive –yet temporary –type of accommodation
that is meant to bridge the gap from homelessness to permanent housing by offering
structure, supervision, support, life skills, and in some cases, education and training.
Woodstock (Huron House)
14 room program
Participants not tenants
364 day maximum stay
Life Skills coaching
System Navigation
Guaranteed last months rent when moving on
Housing seeking support
Transitional Housing
as an Innovative Model in Rural Ontario
Reaching Home Community Capacity and Innovation (CCI) Funding
Application submitted to duplicate the Woodstock program on a smaller
scale in Tillsonburg
Approved Phase 1.
Impatiently waiting on Phase 2.
This model (Huron House) has proven very successful with a total of 32
participants since May 1, 2020 and 15 of those have successfully moved into
permanent housing in community.
To Summarize
OCCHC Housing Program accepts referrals for the following:
Huron House Applications in chronological order and they will be placed in the
que for when vacancy arises.
Referrals for individuals and families who are at risk of eviction and have
received an eviction notice.
Individuals or families who have been housed within the last 3 months and
have a history of eviction or instability related to housing and life skills.
Rent Geared to Income Housing Tenants with Oxford County RGI
housing/affordable housing.
Multi-Service Centre
Report to Town of Tillsonburg Affordable and Attainable Housing Committee
Kathryn Leatherland and Rebecca Sanders
November 24, 2021
Rates of Homelessness Reported
The MSC’s youth program, Youth Job Connection, has 13% of participants this fiscal
year reporting they are either homeless or at risk of homelessness. YJC serves youth
aged 18 to 29.In the previous fiscal 14% of clients reported this fact over the whole
year.
Employment Services program, which serves all ages of adults, referred out to other
community partners 15% of all clients receiving services from April 2021 to October
2021 due to clients reporting either homelessness or at risk of homelessness. That’s an
increase from 6% of all clients in the previous fiscal year.
Services Provided
MSC staff work with people experiencing homelessness or who are at risk for
homelessness so they can secure and retain an increased and more stable income using
some of the following supports:
Resource Centre-access to computers, internet, phone, message system
Job search strategies, résumé and interview techniques
Short-term training and educational upgrading options
Follow-up contact after starting a job to increase position retention
Warm referrals to local partner agencies that provide housing, counselling and other
necessities of life
WESTON CONSULTING11WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111attainable housing strategyCOUNTY OF WELLINGTONNOVEMBER 2019ISSUED DECEMBER 2019WESTON CONSULTINGplanning + urban design
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON2Acknowledgments This report is respectfully submitted to the County of Wellington Economic Division by Weston Consulting:Peter Weston MA, MCIP, RPPSandra K. Patano, BES, MES, MCIP, RPPManny Zanders, BAJenna Thibault, B.Sc., MPL, RPPShane Morgan, B.ARCH,Holly Templeton, BA, MScA special thank you to Davvid O’Keefe and Jeff Shapiro of O’Keefe and Associates for their contribution in this Strategy Report, in particular the preparation of the Community Land Trust Report and the Attainable Housing Portfolio Typology Analysis. Thank you to County of Wellington staff and the member municipalities, in particular Wellington North’s Roundtable for sharing their thoughts on the attainable housing shortage, as well as the many stakeholders and County residents whom participated in the community consultation and engagement phase of this Strategy.
WESTON CONSULTING3Table Of ContentsExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Section 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Section 2: Land Use Policies, Procedures, Constraints & Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Section 3: Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Section 4: Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Appendicies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Appendix 1: Community Land Trust ReportAppendix 2: Suggestions for Attainable Housing Portfolio: Typology AnalysisList Of FiguresFigure 1: Map of the County of Wellington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Figure 2: Annual Housing Forecast for Wellington County, 2015 - 2041 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13List Of TablesTable 1: 2016 Census Adjusted Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Table 2: Building Permits Issued for New Dwellings in Wellington County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Table 3: 2016 Census Data regarding Costs of Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Table 4: Rental Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Table 5: 2016 Census Labour Force Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Table 6: Total Number of Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Table 7: Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Table 8: Policy Based Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 9: Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
executive summaryThe ProblemThe purpose of this Attainable Housing Strategy [“Report”] is to provide recommendations to assist the County of Wellington [“The County”] with its attainable housing shortage. The scale of this issue is signifi cant, especially for the County’s workforce. The lack of attainable housing is making it diffi cult for local employers to attract and retain workers, with some employers incurring costs in order to house or transport their workers. This problem is further infl uenced by the County’s geographic location, which is in close proximity to major economic centres in the City of Guelph, Waterloo Region and the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area [GTHA]. It is anticipated that this economic pressure will attract residential activity from outside the County, increasing the development of low-rise housing forms, which are not attainable. The dominant form of housing in the County is single detached dwellings which is a type of housing that is no longer aff ordable for moderate income households. Current data regarding housing supply indicates that the total number of newly constructed units is not on the rise, while housing prices are increasing. In addition, the rental market is experiencing similar challenges with respect to attainability. The County’s vacancy rate of 1% is also making acquiring rental housing diffi cult. This Report was initiated from a need to develop recommendations to address the shortage of attainable housing for the County’s workforce but has expanded in scope to focus more broadly on establishing strategies appropriate for all low and moderate-income households across the County. The term attainable, for the purposes of this Report, refers to housing provided for purchase or for rent and subject to public intervention at the time of purchase or construction. Public Intervention takes many forms and can include: a. Deletion of exclusionary policies from the Offi cial Plan to enable a range of housing types.b. Inserting permissive policies in the Offi cial Plan to require range of market housing types in specifi c locations.c. Provide incentives such as eliminate or diminish development charges, education levies, parkland dedication levies, building permit fees, planning application fees and realty taxes.d. Apply for Federal and Provincial housing grants or loans to assist with purchase and construction of attainable housing and/or land acquisition.e. The County may provide grants or loans to enable land acquisition or assist in dwelling purchase.f. The County may provide covenants to assist in land acquisition, dwelling purchase, and/or construction fi nancing.g. The County may waive property taxes for a specifi ed period. The Approach The solution requires the implementation of various strategies, not only fi nancial tools but County initiatives and land use planning mechanisms to increase the production of attainable housing units which meet the needs of diff erent households. Land use planning regulations which lack fl exibility can play a key role in inhibiting the creation of lower-cost housing by the private sector. To establish a list of action-oriented recommendations, a policy analysis and public consultation process were undertaken. A Pilot Project considering the option of a Community Land Trust [CLT] and an Attainable Housing Options Portfolio focused on built form and construction methods, accompany this Report as appendices.
WESTON CONSULTING5Policy Analysis Provincial policy plays a role in the delivery of attainable housing as it creates a framework for managing growth and provides policy direction to guide land development. As part of this Report, the Growth Plan [2019] and the Province’s Housing Supply Action Plan [2019] were reviewed. Through this review, it was uncovered that recent changes being implemented by the Province’s Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 [Bill 108] are aimed at increasing housing aff ordability. Bill 108 introduces benefi cial amendments related to second units such as allowing two second units on one property, by permitting two residential units in a main residence [single detached, semi-detached or rowhouse] and one in an ancillary structure. At the County level, an analysis of the County’s Offi cial Plan was conducted to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the existing policy framework. This Report also reviewed and compared the County’s policies to those of Duff erin and Perth County, which are both counties of a similar population size and character.The intention of this review was to assess diff erences in how each County addresses housing supply and aff ordability from a policy perspective. This review was also helpful for comparing and understanding potential implementation policies which can be put in place to encourage the development of attainable units. Community Engagement StrategyThe Community Engagement Strategy consisted of a detailed process to consult with the public through key stakeholder interviews and a public survey. Questions were asked to identify public perceptions on the challenges associated with creating attainable housing and to discuss factors related to development such as built form, cost and location. The key “stakeholders” were selected from a broad list of individuals, provided by County Staff , that hold in-depth knowledge of issues and opportunities related to housing and community development in the County. The public survey questions diff ered from those asked of key stakeholders and focused on understanding the public’s opinion on existing housing issues and needs. FindingsThe policy analysis indicated that the housing and aff ordability policies in the County’s Offi cial Plan are adequate but from an implementation perspective, the Offi cial Plan lacks policies to incentivize the development of attainable housing. Density bonusing is one tool, present in both the Duff erin and Perth Offi cial Plans, which the County does not include. This land use planning tool would allow the County to increase attainable housing units as a community benefi t in exchange for greater heights and densities for new developments. The County Offi cial Plan also includes language which places emphasis on the dominance of single detached dwellings as a primary built form expected to continue. This language is problematic as it is counter-intuitive to diversifying the built form of the existing housing stock, which is critical to improving housing aff ordability. Through the simulated Community Land Trust [CLT] Pilot Project, particularly the cost analysis component, it was determined that public intervention by way of incentives are mandatory to provide housing at a price substantially lower than current market prices. The Community Engagement Strategy was informative for revealing what the public believes are some of the key challenges associated with developing attainable housing units. Stakeholders responses suggested that some of the leading reasons are unsecure/lengthy development approval processes and property limitations. The availability of serviced land is another road block for inhibiting the development of attainable housing. RecommendationsThere is no one recommendation which will remedy the County’s attainable housing shortage. A comprehensive approach incorporating diff erent types of strategies is needed. This Report established three types of recommendations categorized as: policy-based recommendations, fi nancial incentives and County action-oriented initiatives. The timing for implementation varies per recommendation, with the policy-based recommendations being more long-term in nature. The County will be undertaking a review of their Offi cial Plan through a Municipal Comprehensive Review [MCR] process in the near future. The timing of this Report aligns well with the County’s upcoming MCR process as it provides an opportunity for the County to receive comments on its Offi cial Plan policies and consider potential changes to be made to support the development of attainable housing. The implementation and success of these recommendations relies on the support of multiple parties including County Staff and Council, key stakeholders, the development industry and the willingness of the community to embrace change. Outlined below are the recommendations suggested for the County to consider in order to increase their attainable housing supply. Policy Based Recommendations1. The Establishment of an Attainable Housing Growth Target.2. Density bonusing.3. Streamlining of the planning approvals process [i.e. implementing a Development Permit System].4. Strengthening and updating the Offi cial Plan policies regarding second units.5. Amending the Offi cial Plan’s existing Community Improvement Planning policies.6. Amending policies in the Offi cial Plan to support a greater diversity of building typologies and construction methods [such as modular].7. Conducting a review of the local Zoning By-laws to reduce regulatory barriers such as minimum lot size requirements, minimum setback requirements and parking requirements. A reduction in the amount of land required for construction greatly lowers the cost of land acquisition and housing construction. 8. The use of Secondary Planning to address local issues.Financial Incentives1. Development Charge reductions or exemptions.2. A reduction in Parkland Dedication requirements.3. Planning Application and Building Permit fee reductions and/or exemptions.County Action Oriented Initiatives1. Encouraging the creation of a Community Land Trust [CLT].2. Incorporating discussions surrounding attainable housing development in Pre-Application Consultation Meetings with builders/developers.3. Passing Demolition Control By-laws to assist in the preservation of rental units.4. Locating existing publicly held sites such as school sites or underutilized hotels/motel sites which would be appropriate to convert for rental units. 5. Developing a Public-Private Partnerships Task Force and obtain CMHC. funding to undertake detailed research about innovative building forms and construction methods. The Task Force would also be responsible for locating areas in the County to support this type of innovative housing. 6. The establishment of Communal Workforce Housing as a short-term strategy.7. Conducting an analysis of servicing availability in the County, both existing and future capacity, and developing a database to compile this data.Next Steps It is recommended that the Economic Development Department be tasked to develop a Working Group to review and evaluate the various recommendations presented in this Report. Our impression is that a Working Group of Economic Development staff , Planning staff and with participation from members of the Wellington County Municipal Economic Development Group would be appropriate.
section 1introductionThe availability of attainable housing for moderate income households is not a unique issue. In the County of Wellington [also referred to as the ‘County’], this issue has become increasingly problematic for the County’s existing labour force. As the population and work force has increased, the County has not experienced an equal amount of growth with respect to its attainable housing supply. Employers have had to develop creative and costly solutions, such as providing living accommodation and transporting their employees, in order to remain viable. Housing aff ordability continues to be a central issue faced by many Canadian communities. For instance, house pricing forecasts anticipate that in the City of Guelph, which is located within the context of the County, the average annual change in house prices from the fi rst quarter of 2019 to the fi rst quarter of 2024 will be 5.5%, the second highest increase in the country [Moody’s Analytics, May 2019]. In order to reverse these aff ordability trends, practical solutions must be implemented to promote the development of attainable housing. We anticipate the market value of housing in municipalities in proximity to Guelph will be experiencing similar pressures. This would eff ect in particular Puslinch and Wellington Centre with less eff ects in other municipalities in the County. A rise in housing prices this rapid suggests that commuters are fi nding the Guelph area suffi ciently convenient and are paying higher prices for accommodations.
WESTON CONSULTING7The Purpose and Goals of this Strategy The purpose of this strategy is to formulate recommendations to increase the supply of housing considered to be attainable, with a particular focus on providing housing for employees and thereby supporting local employers. This strategy provides a solutions-based approach and identifi es various measures to promote the creation of attainable housing units, which range in terms of their timeline for implementation. Certain measures, such as amendments to the County’s Offi cial Plan policies, will take longer to implement compared with other opportunities, such as supporting the development of less costly residential housing alternatives such as second suites. This strategy also outlines some of the challenges associated with implementing attainable housing based on discussions held with key stakeholders and a review of documents on this subject. The development of this strategy required that an analysis of the existing planning regime be assessed in order to gain an understanding of the broader land use planning context. An evaluation of the best practices in land use planning and a review of market and fi nancial considerations were also considered. For instance, one way which developers can respond to this housing issue is by implementing housing typologies which are less traditional than the typical low-rise, residential built forms. Traditional building forms, such as single detached dwellings, are no longer attainable for many low to moderate income households. This Report was developed in accordance with an established set of goals which assisted in guiding the direction of this strategy:I. Present a strategy with recommendations that will defi ne what Attainable Housing is for Wellington County and encourage an increase of attainable housing units in the short-term, mid-term and long-term.II. Development of a hypothetical Pilot Project to serve as an example of a mid to large-scale attainable housing development. The Pilot Project is supported by a fi nancial feasibility analysis presented in Appendix I. III. Identify attainable housing typologies to allow for a diverse mix of built forms and densities. This is presented in an “Attainable Housing Options Portfolio” Appendix 2. Figure 1: Map of the County of Wellington: Wellington County Home Webpage, 2019.The County of Wellington is located in southwestern Ontario and is a predominately rural county comprised of many types of communities including town-centres, suburbs and rural areas that each provide a unique context. The County consists of seven member municipalities which are the Township of Centre Wellington, the Town of Erin, the Township of Guelph-Eramosa, the Township of Mapleton, the Town of Minto, the Township of Puslinch and the Township of Wellington North [Figure 1 – Map of the County]. The City of Guelph is not part of the County, it is an upper tier municipality which maintains its own government.
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON8Wellington County’s Attainable Housing Shortage The identifi cation of the attainable housing crisis in the County was realized through a series of discussions between the Wellington County Economic Development Division and the local business community. The County’s labour force is experiencing diffi culty attaining housing at a price that allows them to pay rents or mortgages while earning an income around the County’s median income level. Market housing, which in the County means homes with a value no less than $400,000, is not within their aff ordability range. The average cost of housing in Wellington County is $453,244, which in eff ect requires individuals and families to earn at least $110,855 per year to purchase a home without a high risk of defaulting on a mortgage loan [The Corporation of the County of Wellington, 2019]. Currently there is an insuffi cient quantity of market housing being constructed that is fi nancially feasible. This is due to several factors, including but not limited to the availability of fi nancing, interest rate levels, cost of construction, building materials and land values. These factors have contributed to the recent surge of housing prices in the County. Economic pressure, based on the County’s geographic location, is another factor which has infl uenced the housing market. The County of Wellington is located in close proximity to the City of Guelph, Waterloo Region, and the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area [GTHA]. According to a Report from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. [2016], the southern/central municipalities in the County are anticipated to attract new residential development activity over the long term as a result of their proximity to these growing employment markets. In addition to attracting residential activity from a labour force located outside of the County, this pressure will impact demand with respect to building typology. The annual housing forecast for the County between 2015 to 2040 anticipates that the majority of new housing growth, about 75%, is anticipated to be of a low-rise housing form [Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2016]. This is an issue as low-rise housing, which is the dominant housing form in the County, is not attainable.A specifi c defi nition of what attainable housing means for Wellington County does not exist. In the absence of a defi nition, the use of this term is meant to capture the type of rental or ownership units which the County’s workforce is trying to obtain. This means market housing of various built forms and densities, which is attainable for the purchaser and satisfi es their needs. This Report does not contemplate opportunities to provide for social housing, which is housing that is subsidized by the government. Throughout this Report, the term aff ordable is sometimes used. The term aff ordable, in these instances, is being used in a broad sense and is intended to be comparable with the term attainable. According to CMHC [2018], aff ordable housing can be considered as follows:“In Canada, housing is considered “aff ordable” if it costs less than 30% of a household’s before-tax income. Many people think the term “aff ordable housing” refers only to rental housing that is subsidized by the government. In reality, it’s a very broad term that can include housing provided by the private, public and non-profi t sectors. It also includes all forms of housing tenure: rental, ownership and co-operative ownership, as well as temporary and permanent housing.”CMHC uses this aff ordability metric of 30% to determine housing need. This does not apply to households that spend more than 30% of their income on housing by choice. An Attainable Housing Strategy was prepared by the City of Vernon’s Aff ordable Housing Committee in December of 2007. The City of Vernon’s Strategy noted that the term attainable has two diff erent meanings, in which the broader meaning is “to describe the ability of households to enter, and graduate to successfully higher levels of, the local housing market.” This defi nition acknowledges the housing needs of a range of income groups, whereas the CMHC metric tends to focus on lower income groups. What is Attainable Housing for Wellington County?The intent of this Report is to develop realistic solutions to increase the aff ordability of housing in the County. This means developing attainable units, both rental and ownership, for the individuals at moderate to middle-income levels which are unable to acquire local market housing to meet their needs. For the purpose of this Report, we suggest the following defi nition of housing categories be followed:1. Available Housing: provided for purchase or for rent and subject to no public intervention.2. Attainable Housing: provided for purchase or for rent and subject to public intervention at time of purchase or construction only.3. Assisted Housing: rental accommodation and subject to on going public intervention in order to secure retention.
WESTON CONSULTING9Research Approach and MethodologyThis section provides an explanation of the research approach, the methods of data collection, and the type of data collected for analysis. The research completed for this Strategy involved a review and analysis of Provincial, County and municipal documents and policies regarding the aff ordability of housing, public surveys and key stakeholder interviews. The documents reviewed included past studies and reports relating to housing issues in Wellington County and policy documents such as the Provincial Growth Plan. This was critical in presenting fi ndings on the specifi c issue of attainable housing which has not been analyzed in detail for Wellington County. The research undertaken resulted in the formulation of a Report which describes and analyzes attainable housing issues within the County.Research Approach The research approach was inductive and focused on an observation of the existing factors which have prevented an increase in housing that can be attained by the County’s median income workforce. The observations off ered an explanation of the County’s current housing supply issue and helped to infl uence the recommendations and conclusions provided in this Strategy. This approach was eff ective through evaluating the context where housing research and analysis was previously undertaken, while also interviewing key stakeholders and obtaining opinions from the general public via an Online survey through Wellington County’s webpage. The evaluation was utilized to inform recommendations which include a simulated pilot project to display a sample approach with details [i.e. built form and fi nancial feasibility] of how attainable housing development can be accomplished in the County.Research MethodologyData was gathered and analyzed to identify immediate, short-term, mid-term and long-term solutions that will encourage the development of attainable housing in the County. The analysis resulted in recommendations for housing development options and strategies. These recommendations are proposed to help develop and maintain an appropriate supply of various housing types which will assist the County in meeting growth targets. In addition, this analysis resulted in the identifi cation of gaps, which are contributing toward this attainable housing issue. This data related to gaps was utilized to determine how the demand for attainable housing is not being met and understand the factors that impact development decisions which ultimately impact the availability of attainable housing units throughout the County. Below is a summary of the how the information was collected.Provincial, County, and Municipal Document ReviewA review of the data available from diff erent levels of government, such as the Provincial Growth Plan [2019] and Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan [2019] was undertaken to understand the existing factors and current initiatives which infl uence housing supply. An analysis of statistics related to Wellington County’s population profi le, employment profi le, housing supply, vacancy rates, cost of housing [for both rent and purchase] was utilized to understand the County’s demographic and economic profi le. The most up to date information available provided insight about the key indicators; serving as a basis for understanding the current housing issues and trends projected for the County. Local Land Use Policy and Zoning Regulation A review of the Wellington County Offi cial Plan and the Zoning By-laws of each member municipality provided an understanding of the relationship between existing land use planning policy and the housing supply crisis. This review also included an analysis of the Offi cial Plan of other similar Counties, to reveal opportunities for encouraging the development of attainable housing through offi cial plan and zoning by-law amendments. Surveys and InterviewsIn addition to the review of existing documents, an Online public survey and interviews with key stakeholders by phone call were conducted. The results of the interviews and survey presented a general consensus on housing issues from residents, local leadership, and the local development community. The responses obtained gave insight into current challenges, public perceptions, and opportunities regarding housing development in the County. The questions were formulated to identify the participant’s opinions on housing costs, built form, and supply, among other factors. The questions were categorized in themes for comparability. This assisted in simplifying the data collected, while producing results that could be quantitatively measured, summarized through key fi ndings, and displayed for ease of understanding with graphs, tables, and/or charts. The detailed process of consulting with the public is explained in the Community Engagement Section of this Strategy. The questions included in the online public survey and in the key stakeholder questionnaire are provided in Appendix III. Public SurveyThe public survey was off ered Online through the Wellington Economic Development webpage, which is where most responses were collected, and a hard copy at County libraries. These two methods were off ered to ensure that County residents had various options to participate. A cover letter was included with the survey to explain the purpose of the Strategy. Also, a reference guide was attached to explain development terminology which the public may not have been familiar with. The survey was available from late July through August 2019. A total of 631 public surveys were completed, which were reviewed and assessed. The assessment presented the public’s understanding of local housing development and their opinions on which housing issues exist and possible solutions. Key Stakeholder Interview Process The key stakeholders were initially contacted by email and phone call in June 2019 to explain the nature and scope of the Strategy and to gain acceptance of their participation in the process. The key stakeholders were selected based on their knowledge, relationships and expertise regarding housing development in the County and were selected per recommendations from County Staff . The selected individuals possessed suffi cient and relevant work experience relating to the local development industry. The respondents whom participated were interviewed between July and August of 2019. The questions were prepared to guide the interview towards the satisfaction of the objectives of the Strategy; however, additional opinions were also gathered. During the interview, respondents were encouraged to express opinions even if not directly related to the questions proposed to them. The discussions lasted approximately 15 minutes and notes were taken for analysis in conjunction with the direct responses to each question.
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON10Average Value of Dwellings [$]Median Value of Dwellings [$]Centre Wellington425,809383,137Town of Erin664,670598,744Guelph/Eramosa605,457549,901Mapleton440,592399,648Minto283,791240,631Puslinch774,198697,578Wellington North 296,394258,353Table 3: 2016 Census Data regarding Costs of Dwellings.Single DetachedSemi-DetachedRow House Apartment [in apartment building or condo]Total2013 172 12 36 30 2502014 216 6 49 55 3262015 290 6 59 76 4312016 419 0 147 99 6652017 410 16 105 20 551Table 2: Building Permits Issued for New Dwellings in Wellington County [Wellington County Planning and Development Department].County of Wellington Demographics and Current TrendsA review of the County’s demographic, housing supply and labour force data is useful to understand current trends and to determine what the data says about housing attainability. The majority of this data was obtained through an analysis of the 2016 Census data provided by Statistics Canada. Typically, census data for Guelph is combined with the Wellington County census division. For the purposes of this Report, data pertaining to Guelph is not included. Population Profi leThe current population for the County of Wellington is 97,610 persons [as of end of 2018]. This is an increase from the population recorded by the 2016 Census of 90,932 persons, adjusted to 94,660 persons to account for the estimated net Census undercount. The population increased by 4.9% from the population recorded in 2011. Table 1 provides the Census adjusted populations for the County’s seven member municipalities in 2016. The largest municipality by population is Centre Wellington and the smallest municipality is Puslinch. Based on the available data from 2011, the population has continued to increase. A rising population will result in a higher demand for housing.Housing Supply and Vacancy Rates As illustrated by Table 2, there was a continuous increase in the number of new dwelling units built across the County from 2013 to 2016. In 2017, the number of new units constructed decreased, with the County reporting that the cost of construction had increased. In terms of housing supply, the most prominent building type being constructed is single detached dwellings, with semi-detached units being the least common. The Province’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe [Growth Plan], 2019, has provided population forecasts for the County up to 2041. The average rate of housing to reach the 2041 population forecast is approximately 623 units per year from 2015 to 2041, which represents a 52% increase from historical trends [Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2016]. The data presented in Table 2 indicates that the rate of housing growth does not match the population forecast requirement. The average cost of housing in Wellington County is $453,244 according to data from the 2016 Canadian Census. This average also includes housing prices for the City of Guelph as it is part of the County of Wellington’s census division geographic area. Table 3 presents the average and median value of dwellings across the County’s seven area municipalities to provide a clearer picture of housing costs in the County, excluding the City of Guelph. Housing costs are the highest in Puslinch and the lowest in Minto. Private ownership is the most common housing tenure for all towns and townships across the County [Statistics Canada, 2016].The rental market in the County is experiencing similar challenges as the home ownership market with respect to attainability. Acquiring rental housing is diffi cult given the County’s currently low vacancy rate of 1%. The vacancy rate for Centre Wellington, the County’s largest municipality, has historically been lower than the 3% minimum required for a healthy market [Guelph and Wellington Vital Signs, January 2018]. Table 4 contains data provided by the County of Wellington in April of 2019 regarding the estimated rental costs for one, two and three bedroom units.2016 Census Adjusted PopulationCentre Wellington 29,347Town of Erin11,908Guelph/Eramosa 13,381Mapleton 10,959Minto 9,027Puslinch7,637Wellington North12,402County Total 94,660Table 1: 2016 Census Adjusted Population [County of Wellington Planning and Development Department, 2019].
WESTON CONSULTING11Dwelling SizeRental Cost [estimated] 1 bedroom apartment$1,000.00- $1,400.002 bedroom apartment$1,200.00 - $1,650.003 bedroom condo$1,700.003 bedroom house$2,000.00 - $2,500.00Table 4: Rental Costs [County of Wellington, April 2019].Labour Force Centre Wellington15,215Town of Erin7,055Guelph/Eramosa7,625Mapleton5,670Minto4,470Puslinch4,215Wellington North6,195Total50,445Table 5: 2016 Census Labour Force Data.Total Number of Jobs2014 42,5932015 43,1802016 46,0182017 47,4492018 48,082Table 6: Total Number of Jobs [2018 Annual Financial Report].Employment Profi le In 2016, the unemployment rate was 5.3%. The 2018 Annual Financial Report for the County of Wellington indicates that the unemployment rate for the County has dropped from the 2017 rate of 3.8% to 3.1% [please note that the County’s unemployment rate data includes the City of Guelph, which is not part of the County]. As of January 2019, the unemployment rate in Ontario was recorded to be 5.7% by Statistics Canada.The resident labour force totals 50,445 people based on the 2016 Census data. A breakdown of the labour force by municipality is provided in Table 5. This represents an increase from the 2011 resident labour force which totaled 48,405 people. The most prominent industry categories include manufacturing, construction, agriculture, retail trade and healthcare and social assistance. The number of jobs in the County has been steadily increasing. As of 2018, there was a total of 48,082 jobs. A breakdown of the number of total jobs in the County over the past fi ve years is provided in Table 6. These statistics indicate that the labour force in the County has continually risen over the past four years. The impact of the County’s current housing shortage, with respect to attainable housing, has not yet resulted in a decrease in the total number of jobs recorded from one year to the next. In conjunction with this trend, it also was not until 2017 that the total number of units constructed in the County decreased, while prices increased. If this development trend continues, the labour force numbers may begin to shift . Based on recent discussions with County Staff , the current housing shortage is heavily impacting the County’s workforce. The maintenance of this trend, which is critical from an economic development perspective, may begin to change should the County’s housing issues not be addressed.
section 2land use policies, procedures, constraints &opportunitiesThis section provides a review of the in-force policy regime, including Provincial policies and the County’s Offi cial Plan, to assess how existing policies support housing aff ordability and the development of attainable housing. A comparison of the County’s Offi cial Plan policies to the Offi cial Plan’s for Duff erin County and Perth County is also provided. Duff erin and Perth were selected for this comparison as these counties are of a similar population size and character. The intention of this analysis is to evaluate how policies relating to housing and residential growth diff er between the counties. A recognition of the limitations with the existing policy framework will assist in identifying how new policies can be developed to encourage and support attainable housing in the County. Wellington County Webpage, Green Legacy, 2019
WESTON CONSULTING13A. The Growth Plan and Provincial Growth Forecasts for Wellington CountyThe Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 [Growth Plan] provides a framework for directing growth and supporting the development of strong, prosperous communities within Ontario. The plan was prepared under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 and fi rst took eff ect on June 16, 2006. Recently, on May 16, 2019, the Growth Plan was updated, with a key focal point of these recent modifi cations to establish stronger policies which help to manage growth and promote an increase in the supply of housing. By 2041, the Greater Golden Horseshoe [GGH] is anticipated to house 13.5 million people. For this to be achieved, there needs to be more housing which people can aff ord, while protecting for the Province’s key employment lands, agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive areas. Growth ForecastsTo assist with managing future growth, the Growth Plan has established population and employment forecasts to 2041 [Section 2.2.1.1]. For the County of Wellington, the Growth Plan projects a total population of 122,000 people by 2031, 132,000 people by 2036 and 140,000 people by 2041. In terms of employment, the Growth Plan projects a total of 54,000 jobs by 2031, 57,000 jobs by 2036 and 61,000 jobs by 2041. As of 2018, the total number of jobs in the County was slightly above 48,000. The current population is 97,610 people. These growth forecasts indicate that the County is anticipated to grow by 44,000 people by the year 2041. It is the County’s responsibility to allocate this forecasted growth between its area municipalities. The growth forecasts stipulated by the Province matter. These forecasts help to guide local and Regional level growth and ensure it is managed over the horizon of the Growth Plan, which is to 2041. They help municipalities to plan for the infrastructure and public services required for development to support a growing economy and population. In order for the County to meet these forecasts, suffi cient land and housing options need to be available to satisfy the projected housing demands of the current and future population. Figure 2 illustrates that the majority of new housing growth forecasted to 2041 is anticipated to be of a low-density form [Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2016]. From 2036 and onwards, the demand for low-density housing is expected to begin decreasing, with the percentage of medium and high-density building forms increasing. Housing aff ordability is expected to be one of the factors driving this change, which is not anticipated to occur until approximately 2036 [Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2016]. This is a concern as housing aff ordability is an issue today. This new housing growth forecast is problematic for the County as this form of housing is typically above $400,000.00 and not aff ordable for the current labour force. The development of more, unattainable low-rise housing will hinder the County’s ability to meet the Province’s growth forecasts and will Figure 2: Annual Housing Forecast for Wellington County, 2015 - 2041 [Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2016].likely attract a greater commuter population which may be able to aff ord this type of housing. As noted in Section 1 of this Report, the County is located near growing economic centers in the GTHA and may provide housing options which are attractive to individuals and families unable to aff ord housing in the Cities of Toronto and Hamilton. Intensifi cation Targets Through the updating process of the latest Growth Plan, modifi cations were made to the policies pertaining to intensifi cation and density targets. The intent of these changes was to recognize that these targets need to be refl ective of the local realities of diff erent communities and planned growth rates. The previous Growth Plan, from July of 2017, directed that by 2031, “a minimum of 60 per cent of all residential development occurring annually within each upper- or single-tier municipality will be within the delineated built-up area [Section 2.2.2.1].” The updated Growth Plan has removed this “one-size fi ts all” policy to establish diff erent minimum intensifi cation targets for municipalities, to be implemented through the next municipal comprehensive review. Part Three of the County’s Offi cial Plan outlines Wellington’s growth strategy, which is consistent with the population projections stipulated by the Growth Plan. The County’s proposed residential intensifi cation target states that “by the year 2015 and for each year thereaft er, a minimum of 20 percent of all residential development occurring annually will be within the built-up area.” This minimum residential intensifi cation target will continue to apply until the County initiates its next municipal comprehensive review and this target is revisited. The County should also consider establishing County-wide targets aimed specifi cally at providing attainable residential development as this will be critical to achieving the minimum intensifi cation target. Recent changes made to the Growth Plan are benefi cial to the County as they recognize the local conditions of the area’s seven municipalities as the determination of density targets has become a County decision. These proposed changes provide more fl exibility for managing how and where growth is to occur. In planning for the future, the County must consider mechanisms which can be implemented to allow for an increase in more aff ordable housing options in order for appropriate density targets to be set and Provincial growth projections to be achieved.
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON14B. More Homes, More Choice: The Housing Supply Action PlanIn May of 2019, the Province released a Housing Supply Action Plan which outlines legislative, regulatory and policy changes proposed by the Province to address Ontario’s housing crisis. A central component of this report is its discussion surrounding Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 [Bill 108], which received Royal Assent on June 6, 2019. Bill 108 introduces amendments to 13 diff erent statutes including the Planning Act, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal [LPAT] Act, the Development Charges Act and Ontario’s Building Code. Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan introduces policies that encourage density and ease the development process. The plan aims to cut red tape in order to make it easier to build the right type of housing, increase housing aff ordability and allow taxpayers to keep more of their earnings. Proper growth management and more housing which residents can aff ord supports the Province’s economy, along with job retention and creation. The right type of housing means permitting all kinds of housing. This includes both ownership and rental units, low-rise built forms such as single detached and semi-detached units, second units, mid-rise buildings and family-sized condos. A mix of housing is a key component of this Plan. The other components of the Province’s housing supply plan include: • Speed: Cutting red tape and paperwork in order to speed up the development approvals process. • Cost: Making costs more predictable to encourage developers to build more housing. • Rent: Protecting tenants and encouraging the development of rental housing. • Innovation: Encouraging creativity with respect to new housing designs, materials and approaches to home ownership. The Province does not build houses and cannot fi x the current housing shortage on their own. Through the changes imposed by Bill 108, the Province will reduce regulation barriers to support the development of homes which will provide more choice and aff ordable options for Ontario. The overall goal is to make it easier to build new housing, for both homeowners and renters. Some of the changes proposed through Bill 108, which are supportive of encouraging the development of more aff ordable housing options, include:• The requirement for municipalities to authorize in their Offi cial Plans and Zoning By-laws the use of two additional residential units on a property in a detached, semi-detached and rowhouse and in an ancillary building or structure. Previously, only one additional residential unit was permitted on a property in a detached, semi-detached or rowhouse, or in an ancillary structure but not both.• Removing barriers associated with parking requirements for additional units. For instance, permitting tandem parking or allowing no parking spaces in instances where a Zoning By-law requires no parking spaces for the primary residential unit. • Exempting development charges [DC’s] for the creation of a second dwelling unit in a new residential dwelling which may be in the form of a single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row housing. This also includes in a structure ancillary to one of these low-rise building types. • Allowing DC’s to be deferred for rental housing. These proposed changes are all geared towards increasing the supply of attainable housing in the County. The inclusion of policies to authorize that a variety of housing types, such as second dwelling units, be standard, minimize additional unit requirements and reduce or defer development related costs, are all strategies to promote the creation of more housing options. C. Attainable Housing Policies at the County Level - Wellington County Offi cial Plan and Zoning By-law RegulationsA key factor that impacts housing cost, as identifi ed by professionals in the housing industry, is land use regulation. Offi cial Plan policies and Zoning By-law standards guide how communities are intended to be developed. Residential permissions have a direct eff ect on how housing is located, constructed and priced in every community. In instances where regulations create too many barriers for the development industry to off er a wide variety of housing types, the supply of housing can decrease, while housing costs may increase. There are mechanisms which municipalities can employ, such as density bonusing and mandatory inclusionary zoning, which encourage the creation of more attainable housing [R.A.H.A., 2010].This section examines the housing and residential policies provided in the Wellington County Offi cial Plan. This review allows for the identifi cation of the strengths and limitations of the County’s policies in order to determine whether more directive policies are a requirement to improve the supply of attainable housing. Offi cial Plan Structure The County’s Offi cial Plan [herein described as ‘the County OP’] contains land use policy direction to guide growth and development for all seven of its member municipalities. The Offi cial Plan policies also provide direction to assist each municipality with developing Zoning By-laws to implement the County’s development objectives with respect to housing.Five of the seven member municipalities fully defer to the policies set out in the County OP, with the exception of Centre Wellington and Erin, each of which have created lower tier Offi cial Plans. The Town of Erin consists of two urban centres [Erin and Hillsburgh] and the Township of Centre Wellington contains three urban centres [Fergus, Elora-Salem and Belwood]. The urban centres in each of these two municipalities are specifi cally regulated by their individual lower tier Offi cial Plans. The remainder of the area within Erin and Centre Wellington are regulated by the County OP. The County’s fi ve other municipalities also maintain urban centres and hamlets, which is where growth is targeted. The County OP land use designations are classifi ed by three major land use systems: the greenlands system, the rural system, and the urban system. Residential development is to be focused within the County’s urban system, which consists of both urban centres and hamlets. The rural system does permit some limited, less traditional, residential built-forms in its recreational areas and country residential areas land use designations. It is noted that the fi nal regulations under Bill 108 have not yet been issued at the time of preparing this Report. Bill 108 should be treated as a work in progress that will need to be reviewed by County of Wellington Staff to determine how it will infl uence the policies in the County’s Offi cial Plan which are to be reviewed and updated through the County’s Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) process. It is possible that the fi nal regulations under Bill 108 may come into place prior to the County’s commencement of their MCR process. This understanding of Bill 108 should be considered in reviewing the recommendations outlined in Section 4 of this Report.
WESTON CONSULTING15Rural System In the recreational areas designation, cottage and trailer park conversions are permitted, under certain conditions. The conversion of cottages from seasonal to permanent use is a new trend that has emerged. This trend of permanent living in cottages requires zoning of the cottage for year-round use. With respect to trailer park conversions, this is permitted if the trailer park has existed since May 6, 1999. Typically, trailer parks are not allowed more than nine months of annual use. The policies for conversion address building code standards, servicing, access, amenity areas, and the separation distance of trailers, which encourages acquisition of additional land. Country residential areas, similar to recreational areas, allow for more limited residential development as only single detached dwellings are permitted, and are to be on individual services. Expansion is permitted in existing houses through the addition of a second unit or a garden suite. The County OP does not allow for the inclusion of new country residential areas. The rural system residential policies do allow for some types of residential built forms, though cottage conversions and trailer parks are less traditional and require additional zoning to be used for year-round use. In addition, the policies related to conversions pertain to already existing structures and not new development. This is also the case with the country residential areas, making these designations not particularly relevant to increasing the County’s attainable housing supply as limited new units can be obtained in this manner. Urban SystemUrban system policies focus on growth in areas of the County described as hamlets and urban centres. These areas are expected to experience a higher rate of new development and population increases in areas where full municipal services are present. Hamlets permit low density single detached units, small scale multiple units, second units, and garden suites. This low-density development is typically on individual on-site services which limits the possibility of greater levels of density. Areas identifi ed as urban centres permit a greater variety of residential development depending on the specifi c land use designation. Urban centres have the greatest opportunity for full connectivity to servicing, which is a key component for off ering a diverse supply of housing. The availability of municipal servicing supports increased density and a mix of uses. Permitted built forms include single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplexes, townhouses, and apartment units. Second units and garden suites are also permitted subject to specifi c provisions being satisfi ed. The County OP indicates that the dominant built-form is single detached dwellings but acknowledges that new housing types are needed to increase variety and to accommodate a more aff ordable housing supply. Single-detached homes have become too expensive for many families and individuals with average or median incomes. The County OP anticipates that the development of semi-detached units, townhouses and apartment dwellings would respond to this issue of providing greater housing variety. Housing and AttainabilityFrom a policy perspective, the County OP provides direction encouraging a variety of dwelling types and promoting aff ordability. The County promotes new residential development at densities which make use of available servicing and is suited to the County’s small town character. Section 4 of the County OP provides policies related to aff ordability, housing and residential intensifi cation. Specifi c policies regarding second units and garden suites is included, directing local municipalities to enact certain zoning provisions to address matters such as access, servicing and amenity areas, for example. The County allows for second units in detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and rowhouses, as well as in ancillary buildings, on the basis that the main dwelling only contains one residential unit. Garden suites are similar to second units but are temporary residences. In addition to implementing secondary units and garden suites as a means for increasing the housing stock, the County OP includes policy direction allowing for residential conversions. A residential conversion allows for the addition of one or more dwelling units in structurally sound buildings on lots of an appropriate size. The County OP defers to the local Zoning By-laws to permit conversions and to provide specifi c regulations, such as the number of units permitted in a converted dwelling. Based on this review, the County OP does contain adequate policies related to housing variability and aff ordability. The County’s current, attainable housing supply shortage illustrates that these policies are not enough to incentivize developers to construct alternative built-forms which are more aff ordable. From an implementation perspective, policies are required to promote these residential objectives. For instance, the inclusion of a density bonusing policy, pursuant to Section 37 in the Planning Act, is one mechanism for achieving this. Density bonusing could consider the provision of attainable housing as a community benefi t in exchange for greater building heights and densities for other commercial or residential developments. The language in the County OP could also be amended to further enforce the need for a more diverse building stock. There are several references in the plan, such as in Section 8.3.1, about single detached dwellings being “the dominant housing type in urban centres and this situation is expected to continue.” The housing cost and supply data shows that single detached dwellings are no longer aff ordable for middle income households. This belief that single detached dwellings are to remain the dominant housing type may no longer be realistic and the language of the County OP must account for this paradigm shift . Zoning for Compact Design The Zoning By-laws of each member municipality are intended to implement the policies within the County OP. The Zoning By-laws may allow all or some of the uses and building types which a land use designation in the County OP authorizes. In addition, the Zoning By-laws also dictate regulations for each zone such as minimum lot sizes, setbacks and parking requirements. The fl e xibility of these regulations is critical as strict provisions can act as regulatory barriers. For instance, high residential parking requirements or minimum lot area sizes which are still too large, can make developing attainable housing not fi nancially feasible. Through zoning regulation, local governments have a signifi cant role in leading the charge to create additional housing stock that is more attainable as the gap between median income and the cost of housing continues to widen. However, if not utilized properly, regulations create barriers that deter the development of attainable housing. Preventing these barriers can be accomplished through monitoring and updating of zoning regulations in response to population and economic changes that occur over time. When action is taken to ensure that as-of-right zoning permissions eff ectively respond to housing needs, municipalities can signifi cantly reduce the need for zoning amendments and special provisions to achieve a greater supply of attainable housing.The review of zoning by-laws to identify regulations that hinder housing supply and aff ordability reveal key indicators which determine the variety of building typology and unit size that can be constructed as-of-right, without the need for applications such as a minor variance. Therefore, it was critical to undertake a zoning by-law review and analysis of the municipalities with Wellington County. During the review, it was determined that a comparison of the lot area, fl oor area, building height, and number of parking spaces required for residential development would be benefi cial. The benefi t of this comparison was the revelation of the zoning standards that permit the smallest lot areas and unit sizes, least amount of parking, and greatest heights for each residential building typology.
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON16The analysis of the zoning standards identifi ed the range of housing types that require the least amount of land and building footprint to construct housing at an attainable price point for median income households. Furthermore, the analysis revealed opportunities for zoning by-law updates to permit more compact design throughout the County. This is critical to encouraging attainable housing development, as compact design requires less land and construction cost, leading to a greater range of housing options.The reduction of minimum lot area and minimum fl oor area will allow for less usage of land to provide more opportunity for outdoor amenities and open space. A reduction of fl oor area per unit is most impactful for multi-family residential developments and mid to large scale subdivisions as land cost are distributed in comparison to individual site development. A review of fl oor area provisions in the county revealed that:• The municipalities in the County which require the least amount of fl oor area for low density residential development are Centre Wellington, Minto, Mapleton, and Wellington North which require fl oor areas in a range of 70 m2 – 75 m2. The municipality which permits the smallest lot area for low density development is Centre Wellington which allows a minimum of 279 m² for single detached dwellings.• The municipalities which require the least fl oor area for medium to high density development are Wellington North, Minto, and Mapleton which require allow fl oor area minimums of 37 m² for a Bachelor unit and 50 m² for a one bedroom in apartments. The municipality which permits the least amount of lot area for medium to high density residential developments is Centre Wellington which permits 325 m² for apartments and 190 m² for street townhouses.A reduction in parking is benefi cial as it creates opportunity for needs such as landscape area, especially in situations where on-street parking is not an option. However, in communities where public transit options are not off ered or are off ered at low service levels, parking reductions are not feasible. Currently the parking requirements for low density developments in the County’s municipalities require 1 space per unit, while requiring 1.5 spaces per unit for medium to high density development. Due to the lack of public transit currently in the County, the only opportunity for parking reduction would be for second units. The addition of a second unit, may not require an additional parking space as in most cases the main dwelling provides a driveway and garage which provides 2-4 parking spaces. In these instances, an additional parking space for the second unit would not be needed.An increase in height in combination with reduced fl o or area and lot area off ers opportunity for greater density. However, increased height is not encouraged as the County has historically taken a stance to restrict greater heights in an eff ort to protect the small-town character of each municipality. The review and analysis of the zoning by-laws reveal opportunity to increase height while continuing to protect the rural character of the County. The greatest height for residential development in the County is permitted in Centre Wellington, which allows 18m for the development of apartments and stacked townhouses.D. A Review of Perth and Duff erin’s Offi cial Plan Policies Wellington County has previously been compared with the counties of Perth and Duff erin by the Economic Development Department as Counties of a similar population size and physical character. A review of each County’s Offi cial Plan was undertaken to understand the policy framework promoting residential growth and development in these Counties. The key objective of this review was to determine whether they maintain any policy tools or practices which Wellington County should implement. Perth County The County of Perth consists of four local municipalities which include the Town of North Perth, the Township of Perth East, the Township of Perth South and the Township of West Perth. These four municipalities were created in 1996-1997 when the County and its fourteen member municipalities undertook a restructuring exercise. These fourteen municipalities are now referred to as wards and are located within the County’s four local municipalities. At the current time, some wards maintain their own lower-tier Offi cial Plan. The County’s serviced urban areas, the wards of Listowel, Milverton, and Mitchell, each have their own Offi cial Plan. Also, the City of Stratford and the Town of St. Marys are located within the boundaries of the County but are separate municipalities from a political standpoint and are not subject to the County of Perth Offi cial Plan. The wards of Listowel, Milverton, and Mitchell contain the highest populations within Perth County, where more dense residential development and a mix of uses is permitted as a result of connectivity to municipal servicing. The remaining areas in the County are more rural, though there are some hamlets and villages, which are classifi ed as settlement areas. The predominant land use activity in the County of Perth is agriculture. Residential development is permitted within the County’s settlement areas The County of Perth has a settlement area hierarchy of serviced urban areas, villages and hamlets. A primary factor impacting the type and amount of growth in the County is the availability of municipal servicing. Similar with the County OP, Perth includes policies related to second dwelling units in all settlement areas. Section 6.3A of the Perth Offi cial Plan directs that second dwelling units “are permitted as a means of providing aff ordable housing and improving effi ciencies in the use of municipal infrastructure and public services.” The Perth OP includes directive policy language indicating that each lower tier municipality’s Zoning By-law “shall contain regulations to permit Second Dwelling Units” and that the by-laws shall regulate specifi c matters. This language is stronger than that provided in the County’s OP.
WESTON CONSULTING17The County of Perth directs the majority of growth and development to the County’s three serviced urban areas. Housing policies for these three areas encourage a range of housing forms and densities to be aff ordable for lower and moderate-income households. More detailed policies encouraging and supporting housing aff ordability and a mix of uses are not provided, as the Perth County OP has a larger agricultural focus. In terms of building typologies, a variety of residential dwelling types are permitted. This includes single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, converted dwellings, townhouses and apartments. In hamlets and villages, the permitted building typologies is limited to single-detached units, semi-detached units, duplexes and apartments associated with commercial establishments. There are also policies related to the general densities to be accommodated for with each building typology. For instance, a density of up to 15 units per hectare is a general guideline for single-detached dwellings and 40 - 60 units per hectare for apartments. Traditionally, residential development in Perth has been on large lots for single detached dwellings on private wells and septic systems. The introduction of smaller lots and higher densities are anticipated in areas with municipal servicing. Policies related to mobile/modular home parks are included in Section 7 of the Perth Offi cial Plan. There are three existing mobile/modular home parks in the County which provide for an alterative housing form to conventional single-detached dwellings. There is the potential to develop new mobile/modular home parks or expand these three existing areas through an Offi cial Plan Amendment. Perth considers these homes as permanent dwelling types. In terms of Implementation, the County of Perth does provide policies related to increases in height and density pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The Offi cial Plan policies refer to this as bonus zoning and defer to local municipal Zoning By-laws to contain bonus zoning provisions. The objective is to provide a public benefi t which cannot be obtained through the normal development process. Supporting the development of aff ordable housing is one of the potential benefi ts suggested in the Offi cial Plan. Duff erin County The Duff erin County Offi cial Plan [herein referred to as the “Offi cial Plan”] provides over-arching land use policy direction and growth management guidance for the County’s eight local municipalities:• Township of Amaranth• Township of East Garafraxa• Town of Grand Valley• Township of Melancthon• Town of Mono• Township of Mulmur• Town of Orangeville• Town ShelburneEach of Duff erin’s local municipalities has its own Offi cial Plan with more detailed land use policies. The Duff erin County Offi cial Plan directs that the majority of population and employment growth is to be towards settlement areas while making effi cient use of existing and planned infrastructure. The settlement area structure includes two categories, urban settlement areas and community settlement areas. The County has three urban settlement areas which include the Town of Orangeville, Town of Shelburne and Town of Grand Valley. The remaining municipalities are classifi ed as community settlement areas. A range of land uses are permitted in urban settlement areas, including residential uses which allow for “a mix of housing types including aff ordable housing options … [Section 3.3.2].” Consistent with Provincial policy direction, land use patterns are to minimize land consumption and make effi cient use of existing or planned infrastructure. In comparison, community settlement areas may experience more limited growth as they consist of small villages and rural hamlets. Similar with the policies of the County OP related to hamlets, the maintenance of the rural settlement character is important as these areas develop. Community settlement areas are more likely to develop through the development of vacant lands, infi l ling or limited residential intensifi cation. In urban settlement areas intensifi cation, infi ll and redevelopment of underutilized sites is promoted. New development in Duff erin County is accommodated through intensifi cation, though, the type, form and scale of intensifi cation tends to be refl ective of local conditions and characteristics [Section 3.4.2]. The Offi cial Plan promotes intensifi cation within the existing built boundary/built-up area, recognizing that there are limited opportunities for intensifi cation. Overall, Duff erin County has a minimum intensifi cation target of 40%. The minimum intensifi cation targets for the County’s urban settlement areas are:• Grand Valley [Urban Settlement Area] – 12%• Orangeville – 50%• Shelburne – 38%The Offi cial Plan does encourage intensifi cation in community settlement areas on the basis that the scale and character is appropriate. A list of criteria has been established to assess whether applications for intensifi cation are appropriate. Outside of the built boundary/built-up area, development of designated greenfi e ld areas within settlement areas is encouraged. The Duff erin County density target for designated greenfi e ld areas is 44 residents and jobs combined per hectare. In terms of housing specifi c policies, the Offi cial Plan has a “Housing and Aff ordability” section, similar to the County OP. Section 3.7 directs that it is the responsibility of local municipalities to “provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents [3.7.1.1.].” At a broader level, the County acknowledges the importance of providing housing which is attainable for low and moderate-income households. Building upon the County’s supply of more aff ordable housing has been identifi ed as a priority. Section 3.7.2.c] identifi es ways in which the County is to promote the creation of aff ordable housing. Some of the proposed mechanisms include:• Streamlining the development approvals process and encourage the waiving of municipal fees [in full or in part] to reduce costs and encourage aff ordable housing construction. • Negotiating with the public and private sectors for the provision of aff ordably priced housing through draft plan of subdivision and condominium approval processes.• Developing a housing strategy that outlines annual housing targets, aff ordability thresholds, mixes of housing types and related data. The focus of the Offi cial Plan’s housing policies is to guide local municipalities in establishing policies and zoning regulations which will increase their supply of housing and provide for fl exibility to ensure that a varied range of housing forms, types, sizes and tenures are available. Housing forms do not need to be traditional. The County supports the implementation of non-traditional additions to the housing stock on the basis that this development exhibits design, effi ciency and adaptability. In comparison to the County OP, Duff erin County’s housing policies are more solution-based oriented as they provide specifi c mechanisms which speak to how more aff ordable housing can be developed. Similar to the County OP and Perth Offi cial Plan, policies allowing for second residential units and garden suites are also provided. Detailed policies and requirements for second residential units and garden suites are to be established through local Offi cial Plans and Zoning By-laws.
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON18Challenges A lack of available municipal servicing Unsecure and lengthy development approval processes Property constraints due to regulationsNimbyism [“Not In My Back Yard”] Location in proximity to commercial activity and jobsLack of Public Private PartnershipsLack of funding to incentivize the development industryCost of development applications and permittingLack of regulation on Air BNBsTable 7: Challenges The Implementation section of the Duff erin Offi cial Plan provides policies which would help to increase the attainable housing supply. For instance, policy direction related to height and density incentives are included. A list of community benefi ts which could be provided are noted, with one example being the provision of aff ordable or rental housing as a community benefi t. Duff erin also includes policies to allow a local municipality to enact a by-law to implement a Development Permit System to streamline the process for specifi c applications. This system is to apply to specifi c areas, as determined by the local municipality, and would require a local Offi cial Plan Amendment to be implemented. Summary A review of the Perth and Duff erin County Offi cial Plans revealed that the County OP is lacking policy direction to promote its residential objectives to provide an adequate supply and variety of housing and promote aff ordability. Both Perth and Duff erin include specifi c implementation-based policies which would be benefi cial to the County OP, especially since the majority of the County’s area municipalities do not have lower-tier Offi cial Plans. In particular, the Duff erin County Offi cial Plan has several policies which the County of Wellington should consider adopting, such as those related to streamlining the development approvals process and implementing various targets in a housing strategy. The Duff erin County Offi cial Plan policies are more solution oriented, which is an eff ective approach, directly related to encouraging attainable housing. Wellington County will soon be commencing a Municipal Comprehensive Review of its Offi cial Plan. This presents an opportunity for the County to work with its member municipalities to enhance the policies in its Offi cial Plan related to increasing its supply of aff ordable housing. The establishment of growth targets related to attainable and more aff ordable housing should be implemented as part of the updated Offi cial Plan. The implementation of targets would provide a tool for assessing progress, which is necessary to understanding whether change is occurring. Table 8 provides an overview of some of the key policy considerations explored in this Section and the potential issue these policies present for the County. Recommendations have been established to assist the County in addressing these policy considerations which have implications for the development of attainable housing. The listed Recommendations are discussed further in Section 4.E. Challenges of Providing Attainable HousingThere are various challenges associated with providing attainable housing which are important to consider when formulating recommendations. An analysis of the County OP, along with the Perth and Duff erin County Offi cial Plans assisted in bringing to light some of these challenges. Interviews with key stakeholders in Wellington County and surveys distributed to the public, detailed in Section 3 of this Report, also discussed this topic. Understanding these challenges was important to establishing a list of recommendations for the County, provided in Section 4. Table 7 provides a list of the challenges uncovered through our document review and community engagement process. The availability of municipal servicing is an important local supply factor. The importance of this factor is recognized by the County. The County Offi cial Plan has established growth policies in which one of their priorities states that “the majority of growth will be directed to urban centres that off er municipal water and sewage services [Section 3.1].” An understanding of servicing capacity limits within the County is required to determine the supply of available land for development. This Report does not provide a review of the amount of serviced land in the County, nor was there much readily available information on this topic. It is recommended that the County conduct an analysis to quantify the availability of existing, or capacity for future serviced lands within its area municipalities.
WESTON CONSULTING19Key PoliciesPurpose of PolicyProblemRecommendationSection 2.2.1.1 of the Growth Plan• To establish population and employment forecasts to 2041 to plan for and manage growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. • Wellington County is to reach a population of 140,000 people and 61,000 jobs by 2041. • The County is anticipated to grow by 44,000 people by 2041. • Current trends indicate that the dominant form of housing is for single detached dwellings. This housing form is not attainable for lower and middle-income households. The Establishment of an Attainable Housing Growth Target[Refer to Policy Based Recommendation I in Section 4]Section 18.8 of the Perth County Offi cial Plan & Section 8.6.2 of the Duff erin County Offi cial Plan• To allow for increases in density or height in exchange for community benefi ts as permitted by Section 37 of the Planning Act.• This would allow for the creation of attainable housing through new development. • The County of Wellington Offi cial Plan does not include policies which permit density bonusing.Inclusion of Density Bonusing policies in the County’s Offi cial Plan[Refer to Policy Based Recommendation II in Section 4]Sections 3.7.2.c] and 8.6.8 of the Duff erin County Offi cial Plan• To support streamlining of the planning application approvals process [i.e. for Zoning By-law Amendment applications].• The planning approvals process is lengthy and uncertain, acting as a disincentive for the development of attainable housing.Permitting Streamlining of the Planning Approvals Process[Refer to Policy Based Recommendation III in Section 4]Section 8.3.1 of the County of Wellington Offi cial Plan• To provide policy direction for lands designated residential. • The policy states that single detached dwellings are expected to continue being the dominant housing type in urban centres. • This type of language is not encouraging of a mix of housing types in residential areas. Amendments to the County Offi cial Plan to provide directive policies to encourage a diverse range of building typologies[Refer to Policy Based Recommendation VI in Section 4]Section 4.12 of the County of Wellington Offi cial Plan • To stipulate Community Improvement policies, based on Planning Act provisions, intended to provide a mechanism for improvements to identifi ed areas• There is no specifi c problem with the existing policies, but they could be enhanced to reference the construction of attainable housing units as an objective.Amendments to the County Offi cial Plan Community Improvement policies[Refer to Policy Based Recommendation V in Section 4]Section 4.4.6 of the County of Wellington Offi cial Plan• To allow for second units in single detached, semi-detached or rowhouse dwellings and within structure ancillary to a main residence. • These policies need to be more directive to further encourage the creation of second units.Amendments to County’s Offi cial Plan Second Unit policies[Refer to Policy Based Recommendation IV in Section 4]Section 2.8 of the County of Wellington Offi cial Plan• To permit the establishment of Secondary Plans for all or part of a local municipality. • There is no specifi c problem with the existing policy. There may be an opportunity to use this as an opportunity to support attainable housing.The Use of Secondary Planning to support Local Attainable Housing Development[Refer to Policy Based Recommendation VIII in Section 4]Zoning By-laws for the County of Wellington’s Area Municipalities• To provide regulations to govern the use and development of land within the County’s area municipalities.• Local Zoning By-laws need to provide more fl e xible regulations and support a greater variety of building typologies to support the development of attainable housing.Modifi cations to Local Zoning By-laws[Refer to Policy Based Recommendation VII in Section 4]Table 8: Policy Based Recommendations
section 3community engagement Included in this section is a summary of responses from our interviews of key stakeholder and opinions from the local residents in response to a public survey. The key stakeholders interviewed were selected from a broad list of individuals provided by County Staff . The public survey was off ered Online and in public libraries to ensure residents had more than one option to participate. The responses collected are summarized below and have been tabulated for presentation in the attached graphs. Each graph provides a clear display of the percentages for each answer provided per question.
WESTON CONSULTING21Key Stakeholder InterviewsApproachOur approach to conducting the stakeholder interviews was to ensure that the responses were comparable; therefore, each question was structured with a multiple-choice response format. Questions were formulated to gain insight directly from key stakeholders whom hold in-depth knowledge of issues and opportunities related to housing and community development in the County. Our goal was not only to obtain direct responses for each question, but to also off er opportunity for a progressive discussion with each interviewee which eff ectively captured intrinsic feedback. Please note that a separate questionnaire was formulated to gain insight from the general public. The responses from both the key stakeholders and the general public were utilized to inform recommendations included in this Strategy.Points of Observation The questionnaire was formulated to obtain opinions on the following in regards to the development of attainable housing in Wellington County:• obstacles• development process• location• community services• existing housing cost• personal interest in development• funding opportunities• personal experience with housing development• knowledge of potential solutionsThe preference of locating new housing is a matter of high importance to existing residents of any municipality. Therefore, it was a question of priority during engagement with the stakeholders who are decision makers and/or developers within Wellington County. The majority of responses [approximately 93%], regarding the location and appropriateness of attainable housing, revealed an acceptance of locating attainable units within the respondent’s communities. This level of support suggests stakeholders have a positive outlook on attainable housing and would support such development, depending on the factors mentioned below, which align with Provincial goals. The open dialogue during the interviews produced specifi c suggestions that attainable units should be located in the County as follows:• Near servicing connections• Where land value is less expensive• Near transit and shopping • Near community facilities• New urban areas on vacant lots in Minto• Within the urban boundary• Close to commercial centres• On County owned landThe questions specifi cally addressed servicing and cost in regards to the location of attainable housing. Stakeholders were somewhat of the opinion that community services and facilities are present to serve population increases in their community; however not enough attainable and subsidized housing is available.In understanding the opinions of those interviewed in regards to the preferred location and the lack of attainable housing, we also wanted to get an understanding of their willingness and ability to tackle the issues. Thus, we asked questions to gain insight into their level of experience in dealing with housing development issues, as well as their understanding of solutions such as Community Land Trust [CLT]. In this regard, the responses suggested that most respondents do not own developable land, have not utilized public private partnerships, nor have they been involved with the development of attainable housing. However, the majority of respondents are interested in purchasing government owned lands or partnering with other parties to develop attainable housing units. In regards to CLTs, most stakeholders have heard about CLTs in some capacity, but are not informed enough to be sure it would work for Wellington County; thus, it is of high importance to increase engagement with stakeholders on solutions that will involve formulating a team of community leaders, such as the creation of a County CLT Foundation.The following graphs illustrate the responses received from the key stakeholder interviews:
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON22
WESTON CONSULTING23
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON24Public SurveyApproachThe public survey was created to collect data on housing experiences of Wellington County residents and to gain insight on their perspective on existing issues and needs. A total of 631 surveys were completed and done so primarily online via the Wellington County Economic Development webpage. The surveys were also made available through hand-held devices and paper copies at local public libraries, as an option for residents without access to the internet. The questions were created to obtain responses regarding the points of observation listed below, which enabled the presentation of key fi ndings to inform the Strategy. The responses were collected by the Economic Development Department whom forwarded the data to the consultant team for analysis. Points of ObservationThe public survey was formulated to obtain opinions on the following:• The price range for purchasing an attainable home.• Current trends of housing choice and supply.• The persons most in need of attainable housing in the County.• The current cost to purchase a single detached home and condo.• The current cost to rent an apartment.• The level of government responsibility needed to provide attainable housing.• The preferred location of attainable housing that would off er more density what is currently available in the County.• The built form of attainable housing preferred by existing residents.• The addition of second units on the property of existing residents.Overview of FindingsThe public survey participants were asked questions to obtain their feedback on housing development trends they have seen and the availability of moderately priced housing in Wellington County. Although each question was in multiple choice format, some questions included a response option which encouraged respondents to either expand on the reasoning for selecting an answer or to provide a response that was not listed. This structure of questioning provided additional insight to the opinions of the public; allowing the survey to capture broader viewpoints. A summary is provided below of key fi ndings that were revealed during the observation of responses.Built FormDetermining the built form needed to provide attainable housing in the County is a key goal of this Report. Therefore, it was important to understand the type of attainable housing that the public would prefer to see developed in their community. The most selected options by participants regarding built form were apartments, tiny homes, secondary suites, duplexes, and modular homes [including shipping container homes]. Second UnitsThe increased use of second units has been one option discussed throughout the Province recently to increase housing supply. Currently, the zoning by-laws within the County’s municipalities permit second units through some residential zoning categories. The residential zones which do not allow second units present a barrier, as property owners would need to submit development applications. In requiring residents to spend additional time and money to submit applications, residents may choose not to add second units, which hinders the opportunity to increase rental housing. In an eff ort to understand how residents perceive such issues with the development of second units, this survey included questions which gave insight to the level of acceptance residents have for increased use of second units. The survey revealed that respondents supported second units as one of the top fi v e options for attainable housing. However, there was a signifi cant lack of interest in respondents being willing to provide second units on their own property. The respondents that were interested in providing second units accounted for less than half of the responses collected. Those who were willing to off er second units were more likely to add a separate structure rather than create an additional unit within their home.Housing CostParticipants were asked how much homes cost in the County and what price range they consider as attainable for their household to purchase a home. The intent was to understand how residents perceive existing housing costs, and to understand what prices they would consider attainable for the County. The following was revealed in the responses:• The respondents were largely of the opinion that the cost to purchase a single-family home or condominium is currently in the range of $300k to $700k and that the average cost to rent an apartment ranges from $1,500 to $2,500.• The majority of respondents believed that homes off ered for purchase at a price below $300,000 would be attainable for their household. “Aff ordable rentals and aff ordable houses to buy are next to impossible. 2 bedroom apartment for $1700 is NOT feasible. I’m having a hard time paying $1000 for rent for a one bedroom being a single mother with only one income.”“Right now the average person making over min wage cannot aff ord to simply rent an apartment because they start at 1250 for a one bedroom, with fi rst and last, food and utilities it’s simply unattainable for most.”Location of residential intensifi cationThe largest percentage of respondents expressed the desire for residential intensifi cation to occur in exiting subdivisions and downtowns/city centres as opposed to rural areas. There were very few responses suggesting that intensifi cation shouldn’t occur at all in the County. Key fi ndings that were revealed regarding intensifi cation are provided below.• Due to the lack of transit options, respondents were interested in seeing intensifi cation occur mostly near the downtown core of municipalities to encourage walking and less vehicle movement.• Subdivisions should be off ered with increased density, a wide variety of built form options and should require centrally located parks.• Dense housing developments should incorporate small garden area amenities without street or front yard parking.• Downtown areas with vacant buildings have opportunity for conversion to apartments• Areas where most rental units currently exist should be intensifi ed. • Intensifi cation should occur near shopping areas to reduce the need for vehicle use.“We need mixed use infi ll and subdivisions with a variety of housing options. Subdivisions need to be connected to our downtown cores via options other than cars.”“If you are going to build, build up on existing condos/apartment buildings. Urban sprawl is a serious sustainability issue and you should limit building new where possible, so we don’t exhaust our resources.”
WESTON CONSULTING25Housing TrendsCurrent housing trends are a key factor in anticipating the outlook of housing supply and cost. Therefore, participants were asked about the most prevalent housing trends they recognize currently in the County. Overall, residents acknowledged that although homes are available for purchase, the supply is too expensive, which has led to the trends listed below as being most notable.• The purchase prices for homes has steadily increased.• Parents are housing their children for longer periods of time aft er graduation.• Less rental housing is available as more people are renting due to increased purchase cost.• Residents are relocating to surrounding areas to purchase and rent“Development in this area has greatly been large to massive homes. Very few starter home options available.”Government Responsibility to Provide Attainable HousingA signifi cant portion of the feedback provided expressed that local government is solely responsible for encouraging and providing attainable housing developments. Few respondents believed housing is heavily controlled by market demand and believed government involvement should be minimal. However, other respondents suggested the County be more active in partnerships with the private sector to assist in providing attainable housing. Below are the most commonly expressed opinions regarding how much government intervention should occur to aff ect the housing market.“It should be the responsibility of our local government to do some long-term planning of high density housing but what is also needed in that plan is the inclusion of infrastructure i.e. Schools, transportation between Fergus and Elora, decent paved roads to support the high density housing.”Short Term RentalsThe prevalence of short-term rentals was the most common topic raised in the responses collected. Respondents provided strong opinions that the local government should restrict the permission of short-term rentals. A list of concerns and suggestions provided are listed below. • Short-term rentals cause a reduction in rental units available for households in need of long-term residency.• Housing that is not owner occupied should be given a timeframe to become either long-term rental properties or owner occupied.• A short-term rental by-law is needed.• Rental housing should be required to have a license for short-term rental.• The increased development and usage of vacation rentals has created empty homes during tourism droughts.• Labor shortages currently exist due to lack of rental housing for potential residents and residents who have relocated.IncentivesThe opportunity for local government to incentivize the development of attainable housing was also a common point of emphasis in the responses collected. Respondents were in favour of government incentives for developers for the following reasons.• Attract the interest of more developers.• Incentives can increase the development of multi-family housing in city centres.• Local government can encourage density with incentives.• Government incentives can encourage developers to maintain housing prices at an attainable rate.• Enhancement of programming for potential fi rst-time home buyers will encourage and support those who are fearful of entering the housing market.Control of Land and CostOpinions on how the government can infl uence land cost and development were also observed in the responses. Many participants made statements suggesting that the ability for local government to control land development and cost of land is a driving force in the availability of attainable housing in the County. A review of the comments revealed common sentiments of the participants which are provide below. • Vacant land is available that can be utilized by the County to build apartments and townhomes for lower income households.• Zoning standards and housing plans can be better utilized to infl uence housing choice and housing development.• Councils have opportunity to infl uence developers in providing more variety of housing options in their proposals during the review process.• The County can amend policy to allow more multi-family development in rural areas.• Local government can work more closely with provincial and federal leadership to secure funding for attainable housing development and infl uence housing policy.• New expensive large lot subdivisions should be restricted.• There is opportunity for the County to partner with developers to build attainable housing units on municipal owned property.• Government requirements can require more development that provides a mix of housing for various levels of income.“The government should be off ering more accommodation similar to the Rent Geared to Income buildings in the north end of town.”“Local government is in charge of zoning and development. There’s a simple solution: all new subdivisions must contain a mix of housing, from subsidized and attainable to high-end.”“Market forces are making housing unattainable in this area so government must intervene.” “We desperately need more apartments, townhouses, condos and small homes. We need walkable communities. We need trails, parks and green spaces. Centre Wellington should not become a big suburban mass. We should encourage mixed use buildings and neighbourhoods. These are things that can be achieved through adjusting zoning bylaws and re-thinking how we live.”
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON26Economic Development & Population GrowthThe responses from participants recognized that the availability of housing plays a key role in employment growth as it attracts and retains residents. The fi ndings below were discovered during the observation of responses.• Greater variety of housing will attract new residents, resulting in an increased tax base.• There is opportunity to enhance County policies for supporting local builders in building attainable housing in smaller communities, to attract more residents to support the workforce for local employers. • Developers are deterred from proposing attainable housing developments by government requirement, especially when the policies of the County and member municipalities are inconsistent.• Without government intervention housing supply will remain low, which will continue to cause higher rent costs and mortgage payments.• Minimum wage jobs are unfi lled because that labor force is not able to aff ord housing in the County.Please note that for this question, the public had the option of selecting a range of responses from one response to all responses provided. Therefore, percentages shown above for each answer display the percentage of individuals whom chose each available answer.“It is the role of government to ensure all people have the opportunity for attainable housing in order to ensure the continued life of a community, so we do not have people leaving or being unable to join the community. Each person who leaves or can’t aff ord to come here means the loss of money in the community to small businesses, through taxes, employment and use of services.”“If a growing community is an important priority for the local government then more aff ordable and attainable housing should be encouraged.”Public Survey Responses
WESTON CONSULTING27What do you think is the cost of the following in your community?
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON28Please note that for this question, the public had the option of selecting a range of responses from one response to all responses provided. Therefore, percentages shown above for each answer display the percentage of individuals whom chose each available answer.Please note that for this question, the public had the option of selecting a range of responses from one response to all responses provided. Therefore, percentages shown above for each answer display the percentage of individuals whom chose each available answer.
WESTON CONSULTING29Summary and Municipality Perspectives Urban growth in Wellington County is aff ected by the range of growth experiences in southern Ontario. This is the result of Wellington County’s context partially within and partially outside of the area of direct pressure for rapid urban development. For instance, while Puslinch, a rural township, is located near rapidly growing urban growth areas in all four directions, including the GTA, Kitchener, Cambridge and Guelph, its growth pressures may diff er from those of larger area municipalities, such as Centre Wellington. Centre Wellington is the most populated town in the County and might be expected to be under similar pressures for commuter housing and for urban growth as is Guelph. In contrast, the municipality of Minto for example, is similar to many other rural municipalities located at a distance from rapidly growing centers. The consequence of the Wellington County context on attainable housing is that strategies to assist in providing attainable housing will have to be individually and specifi cally tailored to accommodate the unique needs and demographics of the various municipalities. In particular, this will be the case for Puslinch and Wellington Centre on the one hand and Wellington North, Minto, etc. on the other. Section 4 of this Report presents a range of recommendations for increasing the supply of attainable housing in the County. The scope of recommendations presented ensures there are options for each municipality to consider as the suitability of the recommendations will vary across the County to suit individual context, demographics and pressures. The public survey results indicate that the price point for attainable housing diff ers across the County. This is refl ective of each municipality’s socio-economic trends. In rural municipalities, such as Minto, the majority of the respondents indicated that an attainable purchase price would be below $200,000 or between $200,000 - $300,000. In larger municipalities, such as Centre Wellington, there was more variation in respondent’s selection of attainable purchase prices, with more consideration for higher price points as well. Overall, the public survey results indicate there are commonalities across all area municipalities in terms of the housing trends being observed. In all municipalities, for example, housing prices are increasing and the perception is that more households are settling outside of the County in order to fi nd suitable housing.
section 4recommendationsIn order to increase the supply of attainable housing, mechanisms need to be implemented to encourage public and private sector organizations to build housing that is more aff ordable. This section proposes a range of policy-based recommendations and County action-oriented initiatives that can be implemented to stimulate the growth of more attainable housing options. These recommendations range in terms of their timing for implementation and include immediate, short-term, mid-term and long-term opportunities. Mapleton, Ontario
WESTON CONSULTING31Policy-Based RecommendationsI. The Establishment of an Attainable Housing Growth TargetThe County OP sets a minimum residential intensifi cation targets for thebuilt-up area and designated greenfi eld areas of 20% for each year beyond 2015 and 40 residents and jobs per hectare, respectively [Section 3.3.1]. The County OP also sets a minimum aff ordable housing target indicating that 25% of housing is to be aff ordable for low and moderate-income households. In this case, aff ordable diff ers from attainable as subsidizes may be provided. A target for increasing the amount of attainable housing is not addressed by the County OP, nor is the term attainable defi ned or mentioned. The County will be undertaking a review of their Offi cial Plan through a Municipal Comprehensive Review [MCR] process shortly. This provides an opportunity for the County to re-evaluate its growth targets and address the missing attainable housing category. The Strategy recommends that a minimum growth target be established for the development of new attainable units aft er the County’s update to its Residential Land Inventory Report is fi nalized. The County produced a Land Inventory Report in 2015 indicating the County’s residential land supply along with its supply of employment designated lands. A new report is expected in December 2019, which will be necessary in establishing an attainable housing growth target.II. Density Bonusing Density bonusing is a measure which would allow for the implementation of attainable housing through new development. The incorporation of density bonusing in Section 13 – Implementation of the County OP would act as an incentive for developers. This tool is related to Section 37 of the Planning Act which allows for the provision of community benefi ts in exchange for increased height and density in residential and commercial developments. The Offi cial Plan will outline a list of community benefi ts which would qualify as appropriate contributions to allow for bonusing. The provision of aff ordable housing is a commonly listed contribution. The County OP could include a density bonusing policy as an incentive for increased height and density in exchange for the development of attainable housing. The inclusion of a density bonusing policy in the County OP is one of the easier tools to implement and would allow for the addition of attainable housing across the County. In order for this to be successfully implemented, Staff needs to create a strong policy which is focused towards attainable housing. III. Streamlining of the Planning Approvals ProcessThrough engagement with key stakeholders in Wellington County, it was noted that the process for obtaining planning approvals is too lengthy. According to key stakeholders interviewed, the development application process for a housing proposal in Wellington County can take a minimum of 1-2 years and in some instances up to 4-5 years. Discussions with County Staff revealed that fast tracking of development applications is not currently permitted. The length of time involved in housing related applications results in more costs for developers, which are ultimately paid for by renters and homeowners. This is a barrier to increasing the housing supply and reducing housing costs. It is recommended that development applications be fast tracked specifi cally for aff ordable and attainable housing developments. A priority placement policy should be implemented for applications which will introduce attainable housing. If fast tracking is not possible, there needs to be more certainty with respect to time-frames as uncertainty can act as a disincentive for developers. The implementation of a Development Permit System [DPS] is another tool for streamlining the planning approvals process for Zoning By-law Amendment, Minor Variance and Site Plan applications. Through our policy analysis review, it was found that Duff erin County maintains policies in its Offi cial Plan permitting a local municipality to enact a by-law to implement a DPS. Under Ontario Regulation 608/06, there are two steps involved in implementing a DPS. The fi rst requires a municipality to amend its Offi cial Plan to selected DPS areas, and secondly, a DPS by-law must be enacted for the selected areas. This system allows for comprehensive planning at the neighbourhood scale by rezoning DPS areas. The DPS by-law sets out the as-of-right permissions for the area, the development standards [i.e. maximum and minimum building heights] and specifi c criteria. A development that meets the standards of the DPS area, would be approved quickly, receiving a development permit. Other municipalities in Ontario, including Gananoque, Lake of Bays and Carleton Place, have enacted a DPS. Further review of this planning tool should be considered by the County as it could be a way to streamline the approval process and plan for attainable housing projects in specifi c areas throughout the County. IV. Second UnitsSecond units are permanent residences commonly referred to as basement apartments, secondary suites or in-law suites. The County OP does maintain policies in Section 4.4.6 which allows for one second unit per property in single detached, semi-detached or rowhouse dwellings and within an ancillary building or structure to a main residence. Second units are self-contained residential units which contain a separate bathroom, kitchen and sleeping facilities from the main residence. Provisions related to specifi c requirements for these units, such as off -street parking, minimum and maximum unit sizes and road access, are to be addressed through Zoning By-laws. The existing policies in the County OP do acknowledge that second units off er an alternative form of housing that will increase the stock of aff ordable rental housing. Based on our review, the County’s policies regarding second units need to be updated to clearly indicate that these units are permitted in both existing and newly developing areas. In addition, these policies will need to be updated to refl ect changes imposed by Bill 108 requiring that policies permit two residential units in a main residence along with another residential unit in an ancillary structure. Bill 108 is also proposing that regulations which present barriers to the implementation of second units, such as off -street parking requirements, be modifi ed to further support the development of this more, aff ordable housing alternative. Another limitation of the County’s OP policies is that they need to be more directive in mandating that all of the local municipal Zoning By-laws contain policies permitting second units in appropriate residential zones. Appropriate residential zones would be those which permit single detached, semi-detached and rowhouse dwellings, as well as ancillary residential buildings or structures. Based on our review of the local municipal Zoning By-laws, second units are not defi ned and not permitted in all residential zones. Prohibitions on second units is a regulatory barrier inhibiting the creation of second units, which would help to create more housing choices in the County. V. Community Improvement PlanningIt is recommended that Section 4.12 of the County OP, which provides policies related to Community Improvement be amended to support the development of attainable housing units. The Community Improvement policies in the Offi cial Plan are in accordance with Section 28 of the Planning Act which allows the County to engage in various community improvement initiative for identifi ed areas, designated as Community Improvement Project Areas. The Planning Act authorizes the provision for aff ordable housing as a community improvement. Attainable housing is not the same as aff ordable housing, based on the traditional meaning of the term, but does require public intervention and is intended to be more aff ordable than market housing. These policies in the County OP should be amended to specifi cally reference the construction of attainable housing units as an objective to be accomplished through this form of planning. In addition, Section 4.12.4 related to implementation, states that a local Council may “provide public funds such as grants, loans and other fi nancial instruments; take advantage of federal, provincial or County funding programs which would benefi t the community.” These fi nancial incentives should be provided to private landowners and developers for the construction of attainable housing. The County should undertake a review of the types of fi nancial incentives which would be available.
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON32VI. Diverse Mix of Housing Forms The County OP is in reasonably good shape in terms of the permissive policies which are in place to support a mix of housing types. The implementation of these policies is the issue as single detached housing continues to be the dominant form of housing in the County. The following amendments to the County OP are proposed to support greater diversity for the existing housing stock:• The County OP residential and urban centre policies make several references suggesting that “the single-detached home will continue to be the dominant form of housing [8.1.3.b].” This language should be removed from the County OP as it is counterintuitive to supporting a range of residential building typologies. • Introduce policies into the County OP which support a mix of housing types which are currently absent such as back-to-back townhouses and stacked townhouses. • Amend policies in the County OP which recognize and support innovative forms of housing which do not currently exist and contemporary construction methods such as modular construction. Modular construction includes a degree of pre-fabrication which supports timely build-out, reducing the overall construction costs. This method of construction would increase the attainability of housing which could help address the immediate housing shortage employers are facing. In advance of an amendment to the County OP, a Temporary Use By-law could be passed by a local council to permit a range of transitional and temporary dwellings such as container homes. The Options for Attainable Housing Portfolio in Appendix II provides further details on attainable housing building typologies, constructions methods and ownership models. As previously noted, the County will soon be reviewing and updating its Offi cial Plan as part of an MCR process. During this process, the County can consider implementing these, and other, modifi cations to the existing policy framework to more directly address attainable housing. VII. Local Municipal Zoning By-law UpdatesThe implementation of new residential zones and modifi cations to existing zoning standards to enhance as-of-right development permissions which support a greater variety of building typologies, including innovative housing forms, will increase the supply of attainable housing. In terms of zoning standards, provisions such as parking standards and minimum fl oor area requirements could be reduced or eliminated in some zones or for some building types to provide more fl exibility for design. Certain provisions related to building heights and densities, could be increased. In addition, in appropriate locations, special areas could be zoned specifi cally to encourage the creation of attainable units. This recommendation is similar to inclusionary zoning, which is a tool permitted in Ontario that allows municipalities to develop policies in its Offi cial Plan and Zoning By-laws to require the incorporation of aff ordable housing units in new residential developments. The incorporation of this type of tool could be used to increase the attainable housing supply by rezoning areas to help encourage the development of attainable units. These rezoned areas would have special provisions attached to them which could raise the permitted density and/or height maximums and lower parking requirements. These special provisions could be utilized on the basis that the new development would include attainable and/or assisted housing units. In order to ensure that the units remain aff ordable, these specially zoned lands would also qualify for funding through Public Private Partnerships which would support attainable and assisted housing, or the development of housing which includes both attainable and assisted housing units. The example provisions could be titled as follows:• AH1 – Attainable Housing Provision• AH2 – Assisted Housing Provision• AH3 – Attainable and Assisted Housing ProvisionA review of all local municipal Zoning By-laws will be a time-consuming exercise but in the long-term, will provide a framework to encourage the creation of a more diverse housing stock, which is more aff ordable. Ensuring that the zoning permissions for diff erent building typologies and smaller units are in place will help reduce the costs and timelines associated with the development process. VIII. Secondary Planning During our review of the County OP, an opportunity to create secondary planning areas was revealed. Section 2.8 of the County OP discusses the opportunity for secondary plans to be utilized for addressing local issues through providing a greater level of detail. The Strategy recommends that specifi c areas within the County be designated as secondary planning areas which are specifi cally guided by attainable and/or aff ordable housing policy to encourage such development in areas defi cient in housing supply.Financial Incentives I. Development Charges Development charge incentives is another mechanism which can be employed to promote the creation of attainable housing. It is recommended that the County review and update its Development Charges By-law to either reduce charges associated with new attainable units or exempt development charges. A list of criteria may need to be established in order to determine when an exemption for new attainable housing units can be granted. The implementation of this incentive would reduce the municipal costs associated with development and assist in promoting housing aff ordability. Bill 108 is also proposing changes to the Development Charges Act allowing for the deferral of development charges for rental housing developments. Development charges would be deferred until the earlier date of the issuance of a permit authorizing occupation of the building and the date the building is fi rst occupied, without the need for an occupancy permit. This proposed amendment to Bill 108 is benefi cial to the County as rental housing is currently undersupplied and not considered aff ordable. II. Reducing Parkland Dedication Requirements Section 13.10 of the County’s OP provides direction with respect to parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu of parkland in accordance with the Planning Act. The possibility of reducing parkland dedication requirements for attainable housing should be explored as a fi nancial incentive as these requirements can be a fi nancial burden for an attainable development project. The City of Peterborough provides an example of a municipality applying this kind of fi nancial incentive. The City has implemented a Municipal Incentive Program for the development of Aff ordable Housing. This program allows the municipality to waive municipal fees required for planning approvals including cash-in-lieu of parkland for projects which are to remain aff ordable for at least 20 years. III. Application Fee Exemptions Planning application and building permit fees add signifi cant costs to the development approval process. These County fees could be waived to promote the construction of attainable housing. The County would need to pass a by-law to amend its Planning and Land Division User Fees and Charges schedule to account for this. The County should also encourage its area municipalities to employ the same type of exemptions of their local planning fees and building permit fees. This type of incentive may promote the facilitation of residential developments which include both market-housing and attainable housing, which may be appealing to developers. The cost of constructing the attainable housing units would be a reduced due to this type of incentive.
WESTON CONSULTING33County Action Oriented Initiatives I. Community Land TrustAppendix I presents a report which explores the Community Land Trust [CLT] concept, proposed as a pilot project for the County, and details why the County should consider establishing a Community Land Trust Foundation to achieve its goal of providing for more attainable housing units. This report includes a cost analysis to present a business case to support the proposed residential scenario, presented as the CLT Concept Plan, for the County. A CLT is a Board that acquires land and holds it in perpetuity to build and sell houses situated on lands which are rented to the homeowners. A CLT is able to control the land purchase cost in the home ownership equation which helps the housing unit to remain at an attainable price. There is also an agreement put in place between the CLT and the homeowner which controls the price and condition of any home sale. Through discussions with County Stakeholders, it was revealed that engagement with a broader audience would be needed to garner the interest of County Staff and political leadership to consider the creation of a Wellington County Community Land Trust Foundation. A CLT Education Symposium was held on July 24, 2019 at the Elora Centre of Arts as a result of this suggestion. Further details related to the symposium and this pilot project are detailed in the accompanying report [Appendix I].II. Eff orts to be Employed by County Staff There are several actions which can be employed by County Staff to assist in the creation of attainable housing:1. Encourage developers at the beginning of the planning process to consider creating attainable units. This discussion should be initiated during the Pre-Application Consultation Meeting with Planning and Economic Development Staff . For instance, in the design of Plan of Subdivision applications, developers should be encouraged to plan for mixed density neighbourhoods which support various building typologies including second units and housing tenures. 2. Consult with the area municipalities about passing Demolition Control By-laws to assist in the preservation of existing rental units by controlling the demolition of residential buildings. 3. The Planning Department and the Economic Development Department should work together with the area municipalities, School Boards and other property owners to identify sites that would be appropriate to convert into rental housing. Examples of appropriate sites may include old school sites, underutilized hotel/motel sites and vacant institutional buildings.4. Develop a Private-Public Partnerships Task Force and obtain CMHC funding to undertake more detailed research regarding innovative building forms and to identify geographic areas in the County where this type of housing could be supported. 5. The Economic Development and Planning Departments could work together to create a “Rental Listings” website, as an interim solution to assist employers and employees. This website would list available rental units in the County of varying housing forms including single family homes, basement apartments and winterized cottages, for example. The County could create lists for employers based on geography and needs. This strategy is employed in Muskoka through their Muskoka Lakes Chamber of Commerce website, which provides lists of rental accommodations to assist local businesses. Prior to engaging in this solution, it may be advisable to test the market to determine if there is suffi cient supply available to avoid frustrating potential renters and stimulating additional costs.III. Communal Workforce Housing A “Communal Workforce Housing” bylaw or agreement is recommended for housing units which are only available to Wellington’s workforce that earn an income range that cannot aff ord market housing. One funding source for the workforce housing could be from the employer themselves assisting with the construction of the units. Through the companies contributing a certain amount [determined by the County] their employees would be eligible for “Communal Workforce Housing”. For example, there are accommodation and hospitality companies that provide workforce accommodations suitable for any place and climate, and that can accommodate a number of people. Target Hospitality, located out of Texas, and ATCO located out of Alberta are leading providers of temporary modular living quarters. Temporary workforce housing through modular building design for apartments, dormitories or containers could be provided to serve as workforce housing as an immediate solution for the County’s labour force. Communal workforce housing is not proposed as a permanent housing solution but rather as a temporary solution in providing immediate accommodations for the County of Wellington workforce.IV. Servicing Constraints Servicing capacity is a constraint which limits the amount of land available for housing and can impact aff ordability. It is suggested that the County conduct an analysis to determine the availability of existing, or capacity for future servicing in its area municipalities. A lack of servicing infl uences development cost and supply. The compilation of this data is important to understanding where growth can occur and to determine which strategies should be implemented to introduce housing, on serviced lands, which is attainable. Table 9 provides a summary of the recommendations and the estimated timing for their implementation. Timing is infl uenced by various factors including the ease of implementation, cost of implementation, community engagement and support, and City Council and Staff ’s capacity to apply the recommendations. Short-term recommendations are estimated to take a minimum of 6 months to implement, medium-term recommendations will take a minimum of 1 year to implement and long-term recommendations a minimum of 2 years. Please note that the timing for implementing the policy-based recommendations are anticipated to vary depending on whether they are staff initiated Offi cial Plan Amendments or implemented through the upcoming County MCR process. Staff initiated Offi cial Plan Amendments are expected to be completed in a shorter time period.V. Utilization of Trailer Parks on a Year-Round Basis The County’s OP includes rural system policies which permit trailer parks in recreational areas. Typically, trailer parks are only permitted for seasonal use, which is up to nine months. Trailer park conversions to a permanent facility may be permitted if specifi c criteria are met, including that “only trailer parks existing on May 6, 1999 will be considered for conversion to permanent use (Section 6.7.6.f)).” The County should consider revising their existing policies related to trailer park conversions to be more fl exible. The use of trailer parks for rental or short-term accommodation could be used as an interim strategy while the County is working to increase its supply of attainable housing. It is acknowledged that this is not a permanent solution but it could be of assistance in the short-term.
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON34Timing for ImplementationRecommendationImmediateShort-TermMedium-TermLong-TermEstablishment of an Attainable Housing Growth TargetDensity BonusingStreamlining of the Planning Approval ProcessSecond UnitsCommunity Improvement PlanningDiverse Mix of Housing Forms Local Municipal Zoning By-law Updates1Secondary Planning Financial IncentivesDevelopment ChargesReducing Parkland Dedication RequirementsApplication Fee ExemptionsCounty Action Oriented InitiativesCommunity Land TrustDiscussions at Pre-Application MeetingsDemolition Control By-lawsUtilization of Trailer Parks on a Year-Round BasisIdentify Available Opportunities and Converting Appropriate Sites for Rental UnitsPrivate-Public Partnerships Task ForceCommunal Workforce HousingServicing Constraints Mapping2Table 9: Summary of Recommendations Notes:1. Some updates could occur within a year but a comprehensive update could take longer. 2. An RFP process, if required, can lengthen the timing for implementation.
References Ariss, N. (2019, September 3). Elora business turns shipping containers into luxurious accommodations. Guelph Today. Retrieved from https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/elora-business-turns-shipping-containers-into-luxurious-accommodations-1671276ATCO. (2019). Buildings & Construction Workforce Housing. Retrieved from https://www.atco.com/en-ca/for-business/buildings-construction/accommodations-living-spaces/workforce-housing.htmlCity of Barrie Planning Services Department. (2015). City of Barrie Aff ordable Housing Strategy. Retrieved from: https://www.barrie.ca/City%20Hall/Planning-and-Development/Policies-Strategies/Documents/Aff ordable-Housing-Strategy.pdfCounty of Perth. (2019). County of Perth Offi cial Plan. Retrieved from https://www.perthcounty.ca/en/doing-business/resources/fi les/2019-05-County-OP-Consolidated-text.pdfCounty of Wellington. (2017). Annual Report 2017A Place to Call Home. Retrieved from https://www.wellington.ca/en/social-services/resources/Housing/2018_HOU_AnnualReportFINAL-June-2018_Committee-Submission.pdfCounty of Wellington. (2018). Annual Report 2018 A Place to Call Home. Retrieved from: https://www.wellington.ca/en/social-services/resources/Housing/2018_HHP-Annual-Report_Infographic.pdfCounty of Wellington. (2019, April). An Economic Development Perspective on the Housing Challenge in Wellington County [PowerPoint slides].County of Wellington Planning and Development Department. (2014). County of Wellington 2013Performance Measures Land Use Planning. County of Wellington Planning and Development Department. (2015). County of Wellington 2014 Performance Measures Land Use Planning.County of Wellington Planning and Development Department. (2016). County of Wellington 2015 Performance Measures Land Use Planning.County of Wellington Planning and Development Department. (2017). County of Wellington 2016 Performance Measures Land Use Planning. County of Wellington Planning and Development Department. (2018). County of Wellington 2017 Performance Measures Land Use Planning.County of Wellington Planning and Development Department. (2019). Census Data. Retrieved from https://www.wellington.ca/en/resident-services/pl-census-data.aspxCounty of Wellington Planning and Development Department. (2018, June). County of Wellington Offi cial Plan. Retrieved from https://www.wellington.ca/en/resident-services/pl-landusepolicies.aspxDavies Howe. (2015, April 10). The Development Permit System: When can your Client Appeal. Retrieved from http://www.davieshowe.com/the-development-permit-system-when-can-your-client-appeal/Duff erin County Planning & Development. (2017). Duff erin County Offi cial Plan. Retrieved from https://www.duff erincounty.ca/planning-development/offi cial-plan-and-provincial-land-use-planning-policiesGuelph and Wellington County Vital Signs. (2018, February). Taking the Pulse of our Community. Retrieved from https://www.guelphcf.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fi leticket=oxM6x3HX8Hw%3d&tabid=62Kelly, T. (2019, May 27). Markham back-to-back townhouse proposal off ers aff ordable $500,000 option. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/05/27/markham-back-to-back-townhouse-proposal-off ers-aff ordable-500000-option.html (Accessed: 29 May 2019)Ministry of Municipal Aff airs and Housing. (2019). A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/document/place-grow-growth-plan-greater-golden-horseshoeMinistry of Municipal Aff airs and Housing. (2019). Bill 108. Retrieved from https://www.ola.org/sites/default/fi les/node-fi les/bill/document/pdf/2019/2019-06/b108ra_e.pdf35
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON36Ministry of Municipal Aff airs and Housing. (2019). More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/more-homes-more-choice-ontarios-housing-supply-action-planMoody’s Analytics. (2019, May). The forecast for the average annual change in house prices in each city, from the fi rst quarter of 2019 to the fi rst quarter of 2024. Retrieved from https://www.rpsrealsolutions.com/documents/en/house-price-forecasts/Canada_Housing_Outlook_201905.pdfMuskoka Lakes Chamber of Commerce Website. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.muskokalakeschamber.ca/accommodations/National Community Land Trust Network. (2011). Community Land Trust Technical Manual. Retrieved from https://groundedsolutions.org/tools-for-success/resource-library/community-land-trust-technical-manualNeilson-Welch Consulting Inc. and City of Vernon Aff ordable Housing Committee. (2007). City of Vernon Attainable Housing Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.vernon.ca/sites/default/fi les/docs/building-planning/permits-applications/attainable_housing_strategy_-_city_of_vernon.pdfPuslinch Township. (2018). Puslinch Township Zoning By-law19/85. Retrieved from: https://www.puslinch.ca/en/living-here/resources/Zoning-By-law-19-85/Puslinch-Zoning-By-law-Apr2018-Consolidation.pdfRyerson Attainable Housing Alliance (R.A.H.A.). (2010). Moving Toward Attainable Housing in Muskoka. Retrieved from: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/document/15831Smart Growth Network. (2001). Aff ordable Housing and Smart Growth Making the Connection. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/aff ordable-housing-and-smart-growth-making-connectionStatistics Canada. (2016). Data products, 2016 Census. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/index-eng.cfmTarget Hospitality. (2019). Workforce Housing Solutions Customized to Fit Your Every Need. Retrieved from https://www.targethospitality.com/Solutions/Town of Erin. (2018). Town of Erin Zoning By-law 07-67. Retrieved from: http://www.erin.ca/uploads/userfi les/fi le/comprehensive%20zoning%20by-law%2007-67%20oct%202012.pdfTown of Minto. (2015). Town of Minto Zoning By-law 01-86. Retrieved from https://town.minto.on.ca/content/residents/application-licenses-and-permits/town-of-minto-zoning-by-law.pdfTownship of Centre Wellington. (2019). Township of Centre Wellington Zoning By-law 2009-045. Retrieved from https://www.centrewellington.ca/en/doing-business/resources/Documents/Planning/Zoning/ZBL-Consolidation_Feb2019_Text-Only.pdfTownship of Guelph-Eramosa. (2016). Township’s Zoning By-law 40/2016. Retrieved from https://get.on.ca/doing-business-here/zoning-by-lawsTownship of Mapleton. (2014). Township of Mapleton Zoning By-law 2010-080. Retrieved from https://www.mapleton.ca/en/township-services/resources/Bylaw/Zoning-By-Law.pdfTownship of Wellington North. (2018). Township of Wellington North Comprehensive Zoning By-law 66-01. Retrieved from https://wellington-north.com/government/departments/planningWatson & Associates Economists LTD. (2016). Wellington County Population, Household and Employment Forecast Update 2011 – 2041. Retrieved from: https://www.wellington.ca/en/resident-services/resources/Planning/Growth-Forecast-OPA99/Watson--Associates-Forecast-update-FINAL-May-5-2015.pdfSuggested ReadingsBC Housing Research Centre & Centre for Sustainability Whistler. (2017). Building Knowledge & Capacity for Aff ordable Housing in BC Small Communities: A Scan of Leading Practices in Aff ordable Housing. Retrieved from https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/library/housing-aff ordability/scan-leading-practices-aff ordable-housing&sortType=sortByDateGenworth MI Canada Inc. (2019). Genworth Canada 2019 Homeownership Study: A Snapshot of Canadian First-Time Homebuyers (FTBS) and What’s Motivating Them. Retrieved from https://www.genworth.ca/en/fi rst-time-homeownership-study.aspxHosseini, Z. (2014). Community Land Trusts for Aff ordable Housing in Ontario. Retrieved from https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/30251/MESMP02328.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yJowett, R. (2019, June). Flexible Units. Novae Res Urbis Vol.22 No. 24. Retrieved from https://www.nrupublishing.com/nru-toronto/ Mironova, O. (2019, July 6). How Community Land Trusts Can Help Address the Aff ordable Housing Crisis. Jacobin. Retrieved from https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/07/community-land-trusts-aff ordable-housingOntario Association of Architects & SvN Architects + Planners Inc. (2019). Housing Aff ordability in Growing Urban Areas. Retrieved from https://oaa.on.ca/news%20&%20events/news/detail/Housing-Aff ordability-in-Growing-Urban-Areas:-Now-Available/2455Ontario Non-Profi t Housing Association & Greg Suttor Consulting. (2014). Aff ordable Housing as Economic Development: How Housing Can Spark Growth in Northern and Southwestern Ontario. Retrieved from https://share.hscorp.ca/fi les/aff ordable-housing-as-economic-development-how-housing-can-spark-growth-in-northern-and-southwestern-ontario/Patten, K. (2015). Vancouver Community Land Trust Foundation Examining a model for long-term housing aff ordability. Retrieved from https://share.hscorp.ca/fi les/vancouver-community-land-trust-foundation-examining-a-model-for-long-term-housing-aff ordability/Platts-Mills, E. (2018). A Guide for Developing Community Land Trust Aff ordable Homeownership Programs in Texas. Retrieved from https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/07/2018-07- ECDC-CLT-Toolkit.pdfSungu-Eryilmaz, Y. & Greenstein, R. (2005, April). Leasing Land for Aff ordable Housing. Land Lines Newsletter of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Retrieved from https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/fi les/pubfi les/1008_landlines%20fi nal%204.05.pdf
Appendices 37Erin, Ontario: Retreived from: http://www.moff atdunlap.com/ontario-real-estate/Thomson-Lake-Paradise/621
Appendix 1The Community Land Trust
WELLINGTON COUNTYCOMMUNITY LAND TRUST Attainable Housing for Today and TomorrowNovember 2019Issued December 2019
1“Lack of housing for purchase or rent at a price point that new residents can aff ord is posing a considerable problem for Wellington County. Employers faced with labour shortages due to housing are requesting meetings with municipalities to discuss options and are demonstrating their desire to participate fi nancially to solve the problem. As part of the County’s Attainable Housing Strategy, hosting a discussion on Community Land Trusts (CLTs) was a good next step for brainstorming solutions. CLTs ensure lasting aff ordability, the ability to prevent displacement and to preserve neighbourhoods, enabling ownership for the many people priced out of our regional market. While we can never control the market, the CLT model may be a solution that enables us to control the land and in essence, our community’s future”.- Jana Burns, BA, MSc, Director of Economic Development, County of WellingtonPeter Weston, MA, MCIP, RPP, Senior Consultant, Weston ConsultingSandra K. Patano, BES, MES, MCIP, RPP, Project Manager, Weston ConsultingDavvid O’Keefe, MRICS,PQS,PLE, Cost Analyst, O’Keefe and Associates LimitedJeff Shapiro, Cost Analyst, O’Keefe and Associates LimitedAcknowledgmentsSpecial thank you to the stakeholders and staff from the County and the member municipalities for your assistance with organizing and participating in the County Community Land Trust Education Symposium held on July 24, 2019 at the Elora Centre of Arts. This report is respectfully submitted to the County of WellingtonWELLINGTONCOUNTYCENTRE WELLINGTONERINPUSLINCHGUELPH-ERAMOSAMAPLETONMINTO WELLINGTONNORTH
2CONTENTS1. I N T R O D U C T I O N 1.1 Issue Statement 1.2 Approach 1.3 Purpose 2. C O M M U N I T Y L A N D T R U S T 2.1 What is it? 2.2 Goal 2.3 How? 2.4 Who? 3. W H Y A C O M M U N I T Y L A N D T R U S T ? 3.1 Current Problem 3.2 Consequences 3.3 CLT Benefi ts 4. W E L L I N G T O N C O U N T Y P I L O T P R O J E C T 4.1 Due Diligence of Potential Sites 4.2 Site Selection 4.3 The CLT Concept Plan 4.4 Planning Applications and Approval Process 4.5 Building Typology 4.6 Cost Analysis 5. C O M M U N I T Y L A N D T R U S T E D U C A T I O N S Y M P O S I U M 6. T H E L A N D T R U S T P R O V I D E R 7. B E S T M A N A G E M E N T P R A C T I C E S
31.1 Issue StatementThe shortage of attainable housing in the County of Wellington is making it diffi cult for local employers to attract and retain workers whom are key to future economic expansion of the County. Some local employers are incurring costs to transport and/or house their workers.1.2 ApproachThe County is in search of creative, innovative solutions to increase the attainable housing stock. The solutions are expected to be realistic and practical to implement. One approach that has proven to deliver both short and long-term housing solutions in several North American municipalities is through the establishment of a Community Land Trust Foundation.1.3 Purpose of this DocumentThis document explores why the County might consider a Community Land Trust (CLT); providing basic information on CLTs and a proposed CLT concept plan. This is to enable evaluation of the suitability to achieve the goal of providing more attainable housing units through establishing a Community Land Trust Foundation.1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
42.1 What is it?The CLT is a Board appointed by the founder. The Board acquires land and holds it in perpetuity, contracts to build houses on it and sells the houses on lands it rents to home owners who have a legitimate need for attainable housing. In the interest of maintaining value in the house, leases typically have a 60 to 99 year term and they are renewable. 2.2 GoalThe goal of a CLT is to remove and/or control the cost of land purchase in the equation of homeownership and to ease the burden of housing cost for communities that have experienced signifi cant housing price increases. An agreement between the CLT and the homeowner controls the price and conditions of the home sale to ensure that the dwelling remains attainable in perpetuity and that capital appreciation at the time of sale is capped based on pre-determined parameters. 2.3 How? The land is leased by the CLT to the home resident at a rate that meets the attainable standards. The aggregate rental stream is set to cover costs of taxes, administration, insurance, fi nancing, etc. and build a reserve fund for maintenance, operating costs, and other purposes. The land leases typically run for 60 - 99 years and contain a pre-emptive option giving the CLT the right to repurchase the ‘bricks and mortar’ upon the leased land should it be sold. The type of residential housing selected for a CLT is an essential component to ensure the dwelling is attainable. In most cases, a multiple family type unit is provided. 2.4 Who? The Founder of the CLT appoints a Board to acquire the land and develop it, enabling it to construct and sell the homes. Many CLTs appoint Board members from three categories: • Public servants and politicians; • Land owner/developer interests such as lenders, builders and property managers; and• Residents who desire to own and will own a CLT home, or residents living in proximity of a CLT project. The relationship between the CLT and the homeowner is set out in an agreement. That agreement stipulates a range of matters such as the building’s use, the privilege to sublet, maintenance, repairs and improvements, and especially the privilege and procedures for selling the home.2. C O M M U N I T Y L A N D T R U S T
53.1 Current ProblemThe current housing supply is not suffi ciently attainable in the County of Wellington and is not being built in suffi cient quantity to meet demand and is dampening the increases in housing costs. 3.2 ConsequencesHousing costs and lack of rentals mean that workers interested in employment in the County cannot fi nd local, aff ordable accommodation. Rent and purchase prices generally surpass aff ordability for middle-income households. Families and individuals are relocating to places off ering a greater range and supply of housing, typically at some distance from the County of Wellington.3.3 CLT Benefi ts• Home purchasers buy the structures located on leased land.• The CLT may vet candidates to ensure they qualify for the fi nancial burden of home ownership, have a legitimate need, and will be reliable homeowners.• The agreement between the CLT and the homeowner requires the maintenance and repair of the structure.• A failure of the homeowner to meet their obligations is remedied by the CLT at the homeowner’s cost.• The CLT agreement provides reasonable and long-lasting cost certainty to residents living on the land. The leases usually last 60 – 99 years, ensuring value and sustainability.3. W H Y A C O M M U N I T Y L A N D T R U S T ?
64.1 Due Diligence of Potential Sites• A preliminary planning review of various sites in the County of Wellington was conducted by Weston Consulting.• Through guidance by County Staff and Municipal Staff , several vacant properties were selected for policy, servicing and locational analysis to determine the viability of attainable housing development on these properties.• Following analysis of several sites, the most feasible vacant site was selected for preliminary concept plan development. This site is in private ownership and no discussions have occurred with the landowners.• The preliminary concept plan is hypothetical and only an example of how a pilot project can be undertaken.• The intent is that the CLT will acquire multiple sites in diff erent communities within the County of Wellington.4. W E L L I N G T O N C O U N T Y C L T P I L O T P R O J E C T
7Site Selection Considerations• Location of site [i.e. Within Built Boundary, Urban Centre] • Parcel Size• Environmental Constraints• Surrounding Land Use Context • Road Network • Nearby Community Services and Infrastructure • Existing Planning Permissions [i.e. is the zoning in place?]• Local and stakeholder contextWhy are these Site Selection Considerations key?• Supports residential intensifi cation and a broader mix of housing that is suitable for the County of Wellington • Makes the project more cost eff ective• Environmentally sound and compatible with surrounding land uses• Relatively faster and more predictable approval process4.2 Site Selection
84.3 The CLT Concept PlanOverview of the CLT Concept Plan• Only a portion of the lands will be acquired by the CLT. The built form product will consist of 96 back-to-back townhouses to be constructed in a common element condominium format.• The CLT element will be only a part of the overall residential component, which will be constructed to provide a broad range of housing types including a mix of built forms. These will include single family homes, semi-detached homes, street townhouses, condominium townhouses, and back-to-back townhouses to encourage diversity and attainability.• The concept proposes a road network and layout of development blocks to support comprehensive development with the ability for each parcel to operate independently for a phased build out.• The incorporation of a radial road organization/network provides ample access into the site.• Built form transition for adjacent uses and massing is considered carefully and density is provided in appropriate locations.• Natural features and open space are linked for compatibility and access. This helps in creating a more attractive place to live.• Incorporation of a Public Park for Parkland Dedication to serve overall development.• Located to enable/encourage local employers to contribute to the start up of the CLT project. • Located in proximity to schools, retail and business services. Parcel Size: 1.488 HA (3.68 AC)Type of Unit: back-to-back townhousesNumber of units: 96Surface Parking: 137Density: 64.51 units per HA (26.1 units per AC)* Only the CLT Concept Plan component of the total development is shown. *Parking supply to be confi gured through pre-application process and amended as required. CLT BoundarySubject Lands
94.4 Planning Applications and the Approvals Process Offi cial Plan and ZoningFrom a planning permissions perspective the site selected for the Pilot Project is attractive because the existing planning documents allow for greater intensifi cation and a mix of housing.Below are the existing planning permissions for the site that make the approval process more predictable and faster.• Designated “Residential” within an Urban Centre.• Zoned (H)R3 – High Density Residential with Holding Symbol and “R1C – Low Density Residential.“• Planning Permissions for the CLT portion permits street townhouse units, cluster/block townhouse units and apartments (once servicing matters have been adequately addressed and Holding symbol is removed).• Remainder of lands may require a rezoning to permit semi-detached and townhouses.
10Development Applications for this SiteDeveloper:• Removal of the Holding Symbol; • Rezoning to permit semi-detached dwellings and townhouses on the portion of lands zoned R1C, as it only permits single family homes;• Draft Plan of Subdivision to create development blocks and road pattern; and• Consent application to create CLT ownership block.CLT:• Site Plan Application; • Minor Variance Application for site specifi c development standards; and• Draft Plan of Condominium to create common element condominium units and the road network.Key Planning Approval Considerations• Any site selected will be subject to a Pre-Application Consultation with the Planning Department to confi rm the required planning applications and technical requirements. • A 2-year process is to be expected to obtain the necessary planning approvals, which approximately agrees with timelines for servicing to be provided to the site.• Should another site be selected, the planning process/development applications would be tailored accordingly but the intent is that the development concept for the Pilot Project is applicable with multiple locations in Wellington County.As with any development project, the CLT Foundation will work with the Planning Department to obtain the necessary planning approvals. It is anticipated that facilitation of the planning approval process for the CLT will require various application approvals, some of which should be acquired by the developer and others that should be acquired by the CLT.
11Recommended Building Typology:Back-to-Back Townhouses off er aff ordability that is currently missing in the marketplace between low and high-rise building typologies. This typology is recommended for the fi rst CLT development.Back-to-Back Townhouses are a type of terraced or row house. They share a rear and side wall, and as they have no rear yard, are typically suited to medium density urban settings. Each unit has a separate or shared entrance at grade, either onto a smaller front yard or directly onto the street. 4.5 Building Typology basement unit 2/optional basement unit 2ground fl oor unit 1 2nd fl oor unit 1unit 1gradegrade20’/6.1m30’/9.1mmaster bedroombalconybathroomstoragestoragesecond bedroomskylightliving roomlaundrylaundrykitchenbathroomstoragebedroomliving room/kitchenCLT Pilot Project Prototype: Designed by Weston Consulting
124.6 Cost Analysis by O’Keefe and Associates Introduction We rely on a fi nancial analyses report supplied to us by O’Keefe and Associates Limited to assess the fi nancial feasibility of the Wellington County CLT Pilot Project:1. The analyses refers to the chosen site to be considered as a Pilot Project. Thus the analyses pertains to a 96 unit back-to-back townhouse concept located in Wellington North in the 2019-2020 time frame.2. While a range of unit types would be suitable for the analyses, the back-to-back townhouse format appears to be optimal for a CLT in the chosen location. The unit sizes selected are 1000 square feet (Best Case) to 1200 square feet (Middle Case and Worst Case), for a two bedroom, two story unit on a raised basement with surface parking. The raised basement will be pre-wired to the panel for pot lights, also with plumbing roughed in, to be fi nished as a third bedroom with a bathroom or family room with a toilet or a one bedroom rentable suite at the purchaser’s option.3. When the raised basement is fi nished, the total living space per unit will be in the order of 1600 to 1800 square feet. A reduction in unit size to 1000 square feet (1600 square feet with fi nished basement) would seem reasonable and might be considered yielding a signifi cant reduction in the initial sale price and household income requirements for fi nancing. Please refer to the Best Case scenario version for the 1000 square foot option analyses [see page 14 number 4].
13Housing Categories and Public Intervention For the purpose of the subsequent analyses, we suggest the following defi nition of housing categories:1. Available Housing: provided for purchase or for rent and subject to no public intervention2. Attainable Housing: provided for purchase or for rent and subject to public intervention at time of purchase or construction only3. Assisted Housing: rental accommodation and subject to on going public intervention in order to secure retentionPublic intervention – it takes many forms:1. Deletion of ‘NIMBY fi rst’ policies: County of Wellington’s Offi cial Plan is in quite good shape in this regard and only minor ‘tweaks’ may be suggested in the subsequent report.2. Affi rmative action: Permissive policies to provide less costly housing types are in place in Wellington’s planning documents but seem underutilized by applicants. Wellington might add policies to require a range of at market housing types in specifi c locations. For example, projects in proximity to signifi cant employment uses might be required, and market housing forms such as en-block townhouses, townhouses, semi-detached dwellings or small lot singles should be built where suitable permissions exist.3. Incentives: Planning Application and Building Permit fees, Development Charges, Parkland dedication/Cash-in-Lieu requirements etc. add signifi cant cost to residential uses. These fees may be diminished or eliminated for specifi c housing types. The addition of Section 37 Density Bonusing policies and Community Improvement Plan policies to the County of Wellington’s Offi cial Plan also provide incentives that support attainable housing. The County of Wellington’s Offi cial Plan will require amendments, as well as the passing of by-laws to allow for these provisions. 4. Housing grants: under specifi ed circumstances, Provincial and Federal grants are available.5. The County of Wellington or signifi cant industries experiencing labour shortages may provide grants or loans for land acquisition or to assist in dwelling purchases.6. The County of Wellington or signifi cant industries experiencing labour shortages may provide covenants in place of grants or loans to assist in land acquisition or to assist in dwelling purchases.7. The County of Wellington or signifi cant industries experiencing labour shortages may provide covenants in place of grants or loans to assist in construction fi nancing, which in turn will help reduce borrowing costs in the form of reduced interest charges and fees and will increase the ‘construction loan to cost’ percentages.8. The County of Wellington may waive property taxes for a specifi ed period of time following occupancy of the dwellings. A period of 5 years for this incentive would seem a reasonable minimum, and property taxes may be phased in aft er the waiver period.
14Summary of Cost Analyses FindingsO’Keefe and Associates undertook a thorough cost analyses of the simulated Pilot Project and its’ variations. The summary of the fi ndings are displayed graphically and are described in numbers 1-5 below, which correspond to the columns on the graph on this page: 1. An example of available housing in Wellington North, as of this date, are newly constructed street townhouse units in Mount Forest priced at $379,500 (1295 square feet on a 25 X 101 foot lot). The household income to enable the purchase is $85,840 which is 106% of the current median income ($81,000) for Wellington North. However, the average cost of housing in the County of Wellington is $453,244 which requires a household income to be at least $110,855 to purchase a home (County of Wellington RFP) .2. Attainable housing in the form of back-to-back townhouse units, 1200 square feet on an unfi nished raised basement (roughed in plumbing and wiring) in CLT ownership format may be provided at $291,000, requiring a household income of $80,491 per annum (100% of median income) to purchase. 3. The same unit as #2 above may be provided at $268,000, requiring a household income of $72,637 per annum (90% of median income) to purchase. The reduction in cost between #2 & #3 results from securing a formidable sponsor, such as the County of Wellington, and reductions in marketing, management and land costs which may be feasible. 4. Best case unfi nished basement: the same unit as in #3 above, but reduced in size to 1000 square feet on a 500 to 600 square foot unfi nished, raised basement, may be provided at $236,000, requiring a household income of $60,081 per annum (75% of median income) to purchase. Property Taxes may be waived for a specifi ed time period following occupancy of the dwellings.5. Best case fi nished basement: the same unit as #4 above, but with a fi nished raised basement providing a one bedroom rental suite, may be provided at $288,000, requiring a household income of $52,023 per annum (65% of median income) to purchase. The rent from the basement suite is factored in. Property taxes may be waived for a specifi ed time period following occupancy of the dwellings.6. Pursuant to #5 above, the one bedroom basement apartment is available to a household income of $29,062.50 [before taxes]. This equates to approximately 36% of the current median household income of $81,000. *See “Notes to Summary of Cost Analyses Findings” on page 15.Cost Analyses by O’Keefe & AssociatesAverage TownhouseSelling Price in Wellington North Average Household Income inWellington North [before tax]
15Notes to Summary of Cost Analyses Findings:1. Suggested incentives [including, but not limited to development charges, education levies, parkland dedication levies, building permit fees, planning application fees and realty taxes during the project] reduce monthly housing costs including loan payments to $2,246.42 (Worst Case) or $2,036.99 (Middle Case) or $1,702.16 (Best Case). 2. The monthly housing costs excluding loan payments (property taxes, land lease payments, common area maintenance, insurance and utilities) are $790.63 (Worst Case), $696.25 (Middle Case) or $520.00 (Best Case) all prior to a $100 per month decrease for loan calculation purposes.3. Suffi cient covenants from the County of Wellington will be required to counter the fi nancial impediments for the Middle Case and Best Case scenarios.4. Cash on hand: The purchaser will require from $25,000 (Best Case) to $30,500 (Worst Case) as a down payment and $8,500 (in every Case) for closing costs. An application for assistance from the Federal or Provincial Government is recommended and may be essential except for when there is assistance from an employer or family or others.5. The current parking requirement (zoning) of 150% of the units seems reasonable providing the number of basement suites does not exceed about 20% of the project units. However, a parking analyses by a qualifi ed engineer is recommended and amendments or variances may be required. 6. The contractor’s price to fi nish the basement is $40,350 per unit. The purchaser may choose to fi nish the basement on their own.
16Lessons Learned1. The simulated CLT Pilot Project illuminated a signifi cant range of issues to be considered. A similar approach should be a prerequisite for every future project undertaken addressing attainable housing issues.2. The cost of available housing in the Wellington North context relative to the median income is huge and growing.3. Housing typology must be carefully chosen. A number of housing forms will move available housing towards attainable housing but such housing types in the North Wellington context are not as attractive and do not off er a sizable reduction in market prices.4. The CLT format is fl exible and may be initiated by municipalities or private interests. However, a CLT is an untried concept and attracts substantial and costly impediments for fi nancing for construction and for purchase, if a suitable sponsor for the project is not in place.5. The advantages of a CLT are signifi cant:i. It locks in the value of housing as of the date of a project’s establishment, subject to increases as set by the CLT;ii. It off sets pressure to provide assisted housing; andiii. The purchasers build equity by paying down the mortgage on the dwelling component and from market appreciation over time.6. A CLT independent of the County of Wellington’s jurisdiction seems improbable because: i. The County of Wellington is able to provide suffi cient covenants to remove the fi nancial impediments encountered; andii. Suffi cient incentives within the County of Wellington’s authority are mandatory to provide attainable housing at a price substantially lower than current market prices.7. The County of Wellington should establish a not for profi t subsidiary corporation rather than a true CLT. Wellington may choose to appoint a Board for such corporation – the collection of rent and taxes from only some of the County of Wellington’s citizens seems to be awkward. However, since that corporation would seem to be entirely reliant on the County of Wellington’s authority, at its’ initial stage at minimum, all appointments to the Board should be at the County’s pleasure. 8. Further, prior to the initiation of a CLT or not for profi t subsidiary corporation, we take the position that the County should set up a ‘focus committee’ to undertake a fi nal evaluation.
17Why have a Community Land Trust Symposium?• Wellington County Staff were interested in better understanding the role of land cost in housing attainability.• A vehicle is needed to deliver the attainable unit product for families and individuals that do not qualify for subsidized housing but are also priced out of market housing.• The County and consultant team aimed to provide awareness and knowledge of the community land trust model to key County stakeholders.Key Contributors to the CLT Symposium:• Peter Weston, Weston Consulting• John Fox, Robins Appleby Barristers and Solicitors• Fausto Gaudio, IC Savings• Jeff Shapiro, O’Keefe and Associates Limited• Davvid O’Keefe, O’Keefe and Associates Limited• Howard Sher, Quality Homes Inc.• Sandra K. Patano, Weston ConsultingResults and Realizations • The symposium allowed the County to identify strengths of the CLTs and the context of where they would be most benefi cial for the County.• The symposium has extended the conversation between County Staff and consultants on CLTs to a broader audience.• Ideas were generated to build multiple sites throughout the County with a keen focus on providing workforce housing.• The County might catalyze the CLT, but does not necessarily need to control the entity.• The housing must be economically sustainable.• Limited public investment is optional.5. C O M M U N I T Y L A N D T R U S T E D U C A T I O N S Y M P O S I U M
18The County is recommended as the land trust provider for the following reasons:• Extensive relationship with member municipalities, communities, and neighbourhoods.• Eff ectiveness due to adequate staff resources and skills for proper selection of a CLT governing board.• Sound mission statement and goal setting has been established.• Adequate demand currently exists in the County for the type and amount of housing proposed.• Makes for a more streamlined and quicker approval process. • County is strong fi nancially with a robust administration. A healthy CLT would generate substantial cash fl ow for maintenance and contribute to the purchase of future sites throughout Wellington County. It is noted here that a CLT model is a fl exible concept and it can be structured in the way that the County wants it to be.6. T H E L A N D T R U S T P R O V I D E R
197. B E S T M A N A G E M E N T P R A C T I C E S Recommended Next Steps 1. Set up focus committee to undertake a fi nal evaluation2. Council Direction to set up CLT and initiate discussions/ acquisition of a site for CLT3. Undertake a pilot project and feasibility study4. Acquire the lands for a CLT5. Develop/Finalize concept for development of lands 6. Work out fi nancial feasibility and arrangement 7. Submit applications and secure approvals 8. [Optional] Make applications for funding from Federal and Provincial government at this point.9. Sell Units!10. Build DevelopmentConsiderations for Board of Directors • CLT Champion• Robust Political Representation• Builders/Developers & Property Managers • Public Administrators• Planners• Cost Consultant• Attorneys• Neighbourhood AssociationsCounty Champion The CLT champion is preferably a representative of the County and is a key component of the long term success of the CLT. members groundleasesubsidiaryDevColand underdevelopmenthousing providershousing providershousing providersnot-for-profit[CLT holds land]Sample Structure of a CLT:“The structure of a CLT can take various forms. A model should be selected that aligns with the goals of Wellington County.” - John Fox
20SUGGESTEDREADINGShttps://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/07/2018-07-ECDC-CLT-Toolkit.pdfhttps://groundedsolutions.org/tools-for-success/resource-library/commu-nity-land-trust-technical-manualhttps://groundedsolutions.org/start-upclthub*note - Images courtesy of the County of Wellington, excepting page 6, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18 and cover page images.
Appendix 2TypologyPortfolio:Choices forAttainable Housing
P O R T F O L I OC H O I C E S F O R A T T A I N A B L E H O U S I N G T Y P O L O G Y A N A L Y S I SN O V E M B E R 2 0 1 9 I S S U E D D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 9
2
3CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONCONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Built Form Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Ownership Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Construction Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4
5CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONI N T R O D U C T I O N This portfolio explores choices for attainable housing typologies. The portfolio provides an analysis of built form types in conjunction with ownership models and construction methods. The purpose of this portfolio is to deliver a recommendation for attainable housing that is both compatible with, and diversifi es, existing housing types in the County of Wellington. The portfolio explores the benefi ts and drawbacks of housing types at a variety of scales. Several key considerations form the foundations upon which the analysis is based: 1. The built form typology recommended must be fl exible and adaptable in form.2. The built form typology must provide an effi cient residential density while supporting complete communities.3. The built form typology must be able to conscientiously integrate into the context of the County of Wellington while introducing diversity in architecture and built form. 4. The built form typology must be able to accommodate a range of ownership types and sizes. 5. The built form typology must be able to be constructed and delivered effi ciently and at reasonable cost. This exploration informs the concluding recommendation for back-to-back townhouses as a suitable typology for attainable housing in the County of Wellington.The discussion is divided into three categories. When developing a recommendation for a built form typology, considerations such as ownership type and method of construction have a signifi cant impact on the attainability of the housing type. Each category provides additional recommendations which will support the success of townhouses as the preferred typology for attainability. The analysis is structured within the following three categories:1. Built Form Typology: Back-to-Back Townhouses2. Ownership Types: Common Element Condominium 3. Methods of Construction: Prefabricated Modular
6
7CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONTownhouses are one of the most successful examples of an adaptive, resilient built form. Townhouses make up some of the oldest building stock seen in our towns and cities. They have a robust, durable reputation and provide a good standard of living for occupants. Back-to-back townhouses are a type of terraced or row house. The townhouses share a rear wall and unless at the end of a row, also share a sidewall. As such, back-to-back townhouses have no rear yard. The density bonus gained by excluding the rear yard is a sizable benefi t of this typology choice for attainable housing, reducing the need for additional storeys and additional land. This does not mean however, that privacy and a sense of ownership are sacrifi ced. Each unit within a back-to-back townhouse block has an individual entrance accessible from the street. Entrances to the townhouse can interact with the frontage in a variety of ways. Entrances may open onto a front yard, which will be typically smaller in scale and span the total width of the townhouse frontage. They may also have direct access from the street or public realm, depending on the density of the surrounding urban condition. A shared rear wall may imply that back-to-back townhouses have limited access to light: integration of skylights and maximizing fenestration is one typical solution. This is done in conjunction with reducing the depth of the unit, while maintaining suffi cient interior space. This allows natural light to reach farther back in each dwelling. Urban blocks consisting of back-to-back-townhouses are dual frontage with no laneways dividing the rows. This can increase the permeability of streets lined with a majority of townhouse rows and typically reduces block length. Breaks in the row provide for additional pedestrian linkages or communal greenspace. Sharing party walls fosters a sense of community and increase the usage of public spaces nearby, such as playgrounds. In addition, denser neighbourhoods facilitate informal surveillance within the community to improve public safety. The townhouse typology is fl exible: the internal space can be confi gured in the style of an apartment unit or a single family dwelling. Due to this adaptability, back-to-back townhouses are therefore an appropriate built form for a range of occupants, including multi-generational living. Usually, a centralized car parking area will be located adjacent to the premises, as the spatial capacity for integrated car garages is reduced by the back-to-back confi guration of the dwellings. An overall reduction in parking spaces can be successful if introduced alongside adequate infrastructure provisions within the public realm. These may include community facilities, transit improvements and the proximity of local services. Walkable local streets are essential. Reducing a two-car household to a single vehicle creates a large economic shift . This capital could be redirected to housing as a result. R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : B A C K - T O - B A C K T O W N H O U S E B U I L T F O R M T Y P O L O G Y
8Back-to-back townhouses are typically non-uniform and can be arranged in a variety of confi gurations within a small or large lot. Usually, a single townhouse will adjoin several within a row or cluster. Rows are not always linear or conform to the street edge. The following examples demonstrate the variety of aesthetic results achievable within the built form typology. As illustrated, townhouses are usually partnered with signifi cant sidewalk and pedestrian circulation spaces linking them to the wider urban and suburban networks. The size of front yards and green space is dependent on the generosity of the front setbacks from the public realm. Clonmore Urban Towns, Core Development Group: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/Clonmore Urban Towns, Core Development Group: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/ca/clonmore-urban-townsca/clonmore-urban-towns
9CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONRow of contemporary townhomes: https://www.abnamro.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2016/abn-amro-growth-rate-for-home-sales-to-slow-and-house-prices-to-increase.htmlAllenbury Gardens, Urban Strategies: https://www.urbanstrategies.com/project/allenbury-gardens/
10Back-to-back townhouses typically follow the line of the street edge, forming a row. Lotting patterns are generally rectilinear and elongated [See Diagram C] depending on the length of the street or block. Lots containing back-to-back townhouses can also be clustered within a larger condominium lot. In this case, the buildings are oriented to frame a courtyard style development. These are accessed by private roads from main streets. U R B A N G R A I N & L O T T I N G P A T T E R N SC H A R A C T E R I S T I C S &A T T R I B U T E STypical built form characteristics and attributes of back-to-back townhouses may include the following: Prepared by Weston ConsultingABC• Scale: Low-rise residential.• Height: 2 - 4 storeys.• Massing: Blocks made up of individual units.• Character: Varied - can range from traditional Victorian inspired townhouses to contemporary townhouses.• Materials: Varied - traditional clay brick and stucco; contemporary cladding may include stone and metal facade treatments. 3D illustration of a Back-to-back townhouse with optional basement unit Section of a Back-to-back townhouse with basement unit Plan view of a typical row containing Back-to-back townhouses
11CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONT Y P O L O G Y O P P O R T U N I T I E S • Supports sustainable densities in new urban areas and incremental intensifi cation in existing urban and suburban areas;• Reduced quantity of shared facilities removes additional maintenance responsibilities from the occupant;• Easier building maintenance due to the absence of a rear yard, while side walls are shared with neighbours; • Common elements will be maintained by the housing association or manager;• The absence of elevators and associated internal servicing reduces the cost of construction while delivering a suitable density within a low-rise form;• Direct access to the street supports walkable neighbourhoods; • Higher density developments incentivize the development of transit infrastructure and contribute to the wider connectivity of neighbourhoods; and • Consolidated open space in the form of parks, trails and playgrounds. T Y P O L O G Y L I M I T A T I O N S• Generally smaller in scale than detached dwellings;• No rear yards and less outdoor space immediately surrounding the property;• Parking must be on-street or contained within dedicated space or internal garage; and • Less room for additions and other building expansions.
12Stacked Townhousesaccommodate multiple units within one townhouse building. Older, single family townhouses are frequently partitioned into separate apartments or units according to need over time. Traditional townhouses converted into a ‘stacked’ typology are common. This distributes the overall maintenance cost of the building between multiple occupants. Unlike back-to-back townhouses, the stacked townhouse has both a rear and front yard, meaning units may be dual accessed. Street townhouses are a traditional form of townhouse. They typically front directly onto the public realm and have little, or no, front yard. The townhouse building is generally single occupancy with multiple fl oors. As the townhouse row is not constrained by shared outdoor space or additional dwellings, laneways are common towards the rear yard providing opportunities for laneway or secondary suites within the lot, in place of a typical garage. Making use of existing, narrower laneways [traditionally 3m-6m in width], or providing modest driveways into and through developments reduces supplementary infrastructure costs. The densifi cation of blocks through the inclusion of laneway buildings, or multiple rows of townhouses, activates underutilized space and increases the permeability of blocks within a neighbourhoods. O T H E R B U I L T F O R M T Y P O L O G Y C O N S I D E R A T I O N SStreet Townhouses Stacked Townhouses The key diff erence between back-to-back townhouses, stacked townhouses and street townhouses is the internal confi guration of units and the placement of the building within the lot. This dictates how the townhouse interacts with the sidewalk and pedestrian realm. Rows of townhouses can also be ‘en-blocked,’ meaning they are serviced by a smaller, private road which reduces the costs of infrastructure provision. Townhouses provide quality dwelling sizes at a range of optimal housing densities for livability and aff ordability. A mix of built form typologies and a range of units types is key to ensuring community-wide housing attainability. A combination of typologies within a development generate sustainable residential density to off set land and infrastructure costs. A range of housing options helps residents to choose housing which is fi nancially viable for them, future-proofi ng against vacancy and insecure tenure. This helps to support and build stable communities. Public survey responses collected and outlined in the Housing Strategy Report indicate that residents would encourage the delivery of apartment buildings, secondary suites and lower-rise, denser typologies to support attainable housing in the County. The following typologies are additional options for providing a range of built forms. As the stacked townhouse is multiple occupancy, the building functions similarly to that of a condominium, with partially shared services while maintaining a traditional townhouse layout on the interior. The apartments may be single level or ‘maisonettes’, spanning across two fl oors. Unlike apartment buildings however, stacked townhouses have limited communal space such as lobbies. Purpose built stacked townhouses oft en feature additional elements such as balconies and roof terraces.
13CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONSmall-Lot Detached Dwellings Semi-Detached Dwellings Walk-Up Apartments Semi-Detached dwellings occupy larger lots than the typical townhouse row. Although generally smaller than detached single family dwellings, semi-detached houses off er many of the benefi ts of the former. These include increased privacy, typically larger front and rear yards and parking provision. Only one side-wall is shared with a neighbour. This reduces noise levels but increases chances of heat loss from the building.Semi-detached building typologies can be suitable for infi ll developments or as a transitional built form in suburban areas seeking to promote modest intensifi cation. Small-lot Single Detached dwellings represent the largest lot-size of the typologies identifi ed. Maintenance costs will generally be higher, as the building is exposed on all frontages and does not share party walls with neighbouring properties. Private outdoor space is also generally larger, as well as parking provision. This can be benefi cial, depending on the transportation needs of the occupant. An overabundance in the supply of large detached dwellings has lead to the proliferation of lower density neighbourhoods which encourage longer journey times and undermine the viability of public transit infrastructure. However, detached dwellings with a smaller footprint are highly suitable for families, and as a ground related housing type, have sizable accessibility benefi ts for a range of age groups. Walk-Up apartments are typically low to mid-rise buildings with stairway access to the upper fl oors. The building consists of multiple apartments units. Despite the lack of elevator provision, a human scaled, low-rise built form maintains the viability of the typology, while deriving fi nancial benefi ts from the reduction in infrastructure costs during construction. Walk-up apartment buildings are highly adaptive and are compatible with a variety of lot sizes. Walk-up apartments are well suited to lots which frame wider roads, supplying a compact, dense built form which supports incremental density in neighbourhoods subject to sprawl. Walk-up apartments contribute to the ‘missing middle’, and have the potential to providing a larger number of units than the average townhouse row. Apartment buildings serve to support a steady supply of attainable units while remaining suitable for a variety of neighbourhood contexts.
14
15CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONThe typologies discussed in this portfolio are typically, though not universally, associated with particular ownership models. The following section contains an overview of potential ownership types relevant to the analysis. 1. Common Freehold Types The land and any buildings on the lot are owned outright. There are no co-ownership elements usually associated with the property. Single family homes including detached and semi-detached dwellings are most commonly associated with this ownership type, with the owner primarily responsible for building maintenance. 2. Condominium As the most common type of ownership, the unit is individually owned while shared spaces come under housing association management, which incurs a cost from the unit owner. This may include shared indoor amenity areas such as gyms and event space within larger buildings. Apartment or condo buildings, including townhouses or row-houses are commonly associated with this ownership type but can also be varied. 3. Common Element CondominiumIn the case of common element condominiums, ownership of the building includes the lot of land on which it sits. Elements of a development such as transport infrastructure or local community facilities are collectively owned by the community of homeowners. Typologies within common element condominiums are varied but generally apply to larger scale developments.R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : C O M M O N E L E M E N T C O N D O M I N I U M O W N E R S H I P T Y P E SBack-to-back townhouses are usually single occupancy. Typically, the connected units are freehold dwellings. They have few common components such as shared green space, amenity space or balconies. Common elements may include exterior elements such as shared driveways. There are several benefi ts to common element condominiums under a Community Land Trust, as detailed in Appendix A. These benefi ts, in conjunction with the back-to-back townhouse built form, are as follows: • Individual ownership of units within the townhouse;• The sharing of communal spaces such as greenspace, sidewalk access and other facilities serves to prevent new communities from becoming severed from the existing neighbourhood; • Maintenance of communal elements will be managed by a management body. This is particularly successful when in partnership with the local authority; and • Sharing facilities and costs reduces burdens on individuals, while maintaining a higher quality condition. Items such as snow clearing can be consolidated for speed and cost savings.
16
17CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONC O N S T R U C T I O N M E T H O D SHousing constructed using modular techniques may take on any number of forms and attributes. Alongside improved quality control, the ability to shape height, materiality, use and general massing is a key benefi t for a changing demographic. Having housing with this in-built fl exibility not only future proofs housing stock against disuse, under-use or change of use, but supports housing for a range of household sizes and occupancy needs. This housing is typically constructed using modular, factory-controlled techniques to expedite delivery and provide fl exibility of occupancy by individuals or families, who rent or own within a common element style condominium.Modular, prefabricated units do not imply that the built form product will lack in variety. Developments may share an architectural language on the exterior but on the interior, posses a range of spatial confi gurations. As illustrated in the following pages, modular construction can produce a broad diversity of facade design, ‘disguising’ the modular core. This also introduces an element of ‘DIY’ and participation into the construction process, whereby elements of the fi nal design may be consulted on, or completed by occupants themselves. The diagram on page 19 demonstrates how units may expand, contract or shift over time. The buildings may be more easily altered if they are no longer serving the need for which they were built. For example, a row of back-to-back townhouses requiring reconfi guration to cater to diff erent occupancy groups. This avoids the original use for which the building was constructed [i.e. an apartment block of bachelor apartments] becoming diffi cult to modify should local demands for housing alter. It is important to establish that ‘modular’ housing is not a built form type. Modular construction is but one of many methods by which a built form typology may be constructed. The recommended built form typology for the County of Wellington in this portfolio is back-to-back townhouses. Some of the key attributes of modular construction that make it a suitable option for attainable housing are: • Modular units may be completed to varying degrees to match a variety of budgets;• Initial modular projects can start small and expand over time, be relocated or adapted according to demand;• Build-out is faster than traditional construction methods if a blueprint for the built form has been pre-prepared and the factory location is relatively local to the site;• Sourcing and siting of resources for construction is key to the success of modular construction, and can be an employment mechanism; and• Supports sustainable land use and reduces localized pollution resulting from longer construction times. The following precedents are intended not as built form recommendations, but as illustrations of the breadth of housing typologies achievable using modular construction. They can include, but are not limited to, low-high rise apartment buildings, row or townhouses and single-family dwellings.R E C O M E N D A T I O N : P R E - F A B R I C A T E D M O D U L A R
18“You only need to change a few ingredients in a townscape to create meaningful variety.” Ben Pentreath, Architectural DesignerA key benefi t with modular constructed housing is that the detailing comes in the choice of facade treatments, which has extensive variety. Left : Prefabricated townhouse Right: Low-rise school complex Adjacent page left : Demonstration of modular construction method at the site assembly stageAdjacent Page right: Mid-rise modular apartment building Contemporary Apartment Block, London UK, Haptic: https://www.dezeen.com/2018/06/18/haptic-architects-apartment-chelsea-conservation-architecture/Prefabricated pine paneling, Waldorf-Steiner School in Bellaterra, Spain; Eduard Balcells, Ignasi Rius and Daniel Tigges.
19CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONUnits are pre-fabricated and stackable for speed of assembly onsite. The modular components can then be assembled in a variety of confi gurations, expanded and adapted over time. Watts Grove Modular Housing construction process, Waugh Thistleton: http://waughthistleton.com/watts-grove/Watts Grove Modular Housing, Waugh Thistleton: http://waughthistleton.com/watts-grove/
20Left : Student housing Right: Apartment housing, mid-riseAdjacent page left : Container home townhouseAdjacent Page right: Transitional housing complex Student residences, Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology in Wiltshire, England, WilkinsonEyre: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/06/13/dyson-institute-wilkinson-ey-re-modular-student-housing/Pre-fabricated Apartment Building, BBGK Architekci, Warsaw: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/06/20/bbgk-sprzeczna-4-warsaw-poland/
21CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONThe above is an example of modular construction using ‘shipping container style’ units stacked in a townhouse confi guration. There are two common types of container housing that we have encountered: [1] shipping containers re-purposed for disaster housing or transitional housing relief, and [2] purpose built containers produced in a modular fashion in a factory setting. However, we have not found suffi cient examples of re-purposed shipping containers to verify the feasibility of the concept for construction on a larger scale. The issues with reuse of containers are: • Their prior use may have involved transport of toxic products which cannot be verifi ed in any practical way;• Aft er the container has been insulated, the room width may be reduced to as little as 7 feet/ 2.13 metres. ‘Container homes’ are currently being installed in Toronto by a number of signifi cant home builders. They typically manufacture the containers abroad and import by ship. They are rugged and fl exible in design and highly transportable, but do not appear to off er signifi cant cost reductions. They are generally manufactured off -shore rather than in Canada, also posing sustainability concerns.Transitional modular dwellings have been used across the globe in a variety of contexts. The project illustrated [right] was developed by Madworkshop and the USC School of Architecture for transitional housing in Los Angeles. The project ’Homes for Hope’ is a proposal that illustrates the level of quality in architectural and spatial design that can be achieved through modular construction to quickly fi ll a local need. The proposal also leverages existing planning policy in California [in this case the ‘by-right’ housing laws passed in 2017] which enables housing projects of less than thirty beds to bypass certain procedures for aff ordable housing. Policy such as this enables new forms of housing to enter the market and helps to vary the breadth of tenure available. Downtown Toronto Shipping Container House Extension Model: https://www.houzz.com/hznb/projects/downtown-toronto-shipping-container-house-exten-sion-pj-vj~2470865Homes for Hope, Madworkshop, The Martin Architecture and Design Workshop, California.
22A number of additional factors and design decisions at the pre-construction phase impact the attainability of a development. Limiting the widths of private lanes and roads, extensive lobby space and reducing the need for elevators all contribute to fi nancial feasibility. Other considerations include the careful selection of construction and cladding materials. A variety of cladding materials, roofi ng materials and facade renders are available for modular construction. Choosing the right material for the local vernacular is key, together with ensuring that design options do not undermine the attainability of the project. Timber framing is a common construction method. Modular timber structures are versatile and ‘stackable’, enabling their use in modular style housing. Cross-laminated timber is increasingly common as a tool for reinforcing and improving durability, soundproofi ng and to support primary fi reproofi ng materials in buildings. A successful project demonstrating the cost-eff ective use of cross-laminated timber in apartment construction was developed by Waugh Thistleton Architects in the UK, utilizing cost-saving and environmentally friendly solutions such as wood-pulp cladding for the building exterior. Page 23 details additional material considerations, illustrating the range of options compatible with modular construction. DIY elements may include unfi nished [or fi nished] basements in back-to-back townhouses, as illustrated in the diagram on page 10. This would create additional occupancy for a rental tenant, which would become an income generator. This option is a hybrid of the back-to-back and stacked townhouse typologies, a consolidation of the most effi cient and sustainable aspects of each built form to maximize the attainability of development. The modular quality of the design ensures that the option to incorporate multiple ‘stacked’ units within a back-to-back townhouse building remains a fl exible option responsive to future adaptation. A D D I T I O N A L C O N S I D E R A T I O N SMurray Grove Timber Tower: Designed by Waugh Thistleton Architects. Left : internal ‘honeycomb’ wooden structure of the apartment building. Right: Internal building core using CLT.
23CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONAIKEBJLFCGDHMcladding materials concrete cladding treatmentsfacade rendering roof tiling A. Brick, made from sand lime, concrete or fl y ash. B. Clay brick.C. Metal siding, steel, aluminum and zinc are common.D. Wooden screening, for balconies and other indoor-outdoor transition spaces. E. Stone veneer slabs. F. Stone masonry. G. Wooden paneling/siding.H. Variations of Wooden paneling/siding.I. Stucco. J. Lime rendering. K. Roof shingle, slate or asphalt tile. L. Clay roof tile. M. Concrete-based treatments for a variety of detailing.
24SUMMARYK E Y R E C O M E N D A T I O N SThe recommended built form for attainable housing in the County of Wellington is back-to-back townhouses, paired with a common element condominium ownership model. in addition, a Community Land Trust model will ensure that the attainability of the scheme for occupants is protected. Constructing the townhouses using modular, prefabricated techniques will help to expedite delivery and reduce costs at the on-site construction phase. This will also create a ‘blueprint’ for future initiatives of this nature. In addition, the following general considerations will support an overall reduction in construction costs and preserve attainability: • No underground parking to reduce maintenance and construction costs;• Wood construction is aff ordable and may be locally sourced. It is also compatible with modular, prefabricated construction methods; • Unit sizes that are family oriented with two bedrooms; and • Options for fi nished or unfi nished [DIY option] basements for additional occupancy can generate income.
25CHOICES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING: TYPOLOGY PORTFOLIO | COUNTY OF WELLINGTONREFERENCESArch Daily, News and Topics. [2018]. Timber Construction: The Latest Architecture and News. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.archdaily.com/tag/timber-constructionAstbury, J. [2019] Prefabricated pine panels clad kindergarten near Barcelona. Dezeen. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/19/el-tiller-kindergarten-school-eduard-balcells-ignasi-rius-daniel-tigges-barcelona-spain/BBC News. [2019]. Flat-pack home? Ikea moves in on UK housing. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48774340Block, I. [2017]. Cross-laminated-timber housing in east London off ers “the future of low carbon construction”. Dezeen. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.dezeen.com/2017/11/01/worlds-largest-cross-laminated-timber-tower-dalston-works-waugh-thistleton-regal-developments-sustainable-london/City of Toronto. Your Home Our City: Walk-Up Apartments. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer-service/access-city-information-or-records/city-of-toronto-archives/whats-online/web-exhibits/your-home-our-city/your-home-our-city-walk-up-apartments/Crook, L. [2019]. WilkinsonEyre completes modular student housing for Dyson Institute. Dezeen. Retrieved from: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/06/13/dyson-institute-wilkinson-eyre-modular-student-housing/Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. [214]. The Lexicon of New Urbanism. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.dpz.com/uploads/Books/Lexicon-2014.pdfHabiter Montreal, The Allure Of Stacked Townhouses. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: https://habitermontreal.com/en/the-allure-of-stacked-townhousesHDL Lawyers [Webpage, 2019]. Condominium Types, 2019. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: https://hldlawyers.com/blog/condominium-types/Lindsay, C. [2018]. Homes for Hope tackles homelessness with modular temporary housing. Dezeen. Retrieved from: https://www.dezeen.com/2018/10/19/video-mini-living-madworkshop-homes-for-hope-homeless-housing-los-angeles-architecture/Martin Architecture and Design Workshop & USC School of Architecture. [2016]. Homes for Hope. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: http://madworkshop.org/projects/homes-for-hope/McAllister,D. [2014]. Stacked townhomes are coming up big. The Toronto Sun. Retrieved from: http://spacing.ca/toronto/2012/01/05/no-mean-city-step-up-toronto/ McKnight, J. [2019]. OJT completes sculptural aff ordable housing in New Orleans. Dezeen. Retrieved from: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/28/saint-thomas-at-ninth-condo-development-ojt-new-orleans-housing/O’Gorman. [Web-page 2019]. Accessed 2019: http://www.ogormanproperties.com/property/glenheron-view-greystones-county-wicklow-2/dsc_0366-edit/ Owainati, H. [2017]. Taking The Townhouse Route? Here’s What You Need To Know About Condo Vs. Freehold, Toronto Storeys. Retrieved from: https://torontostoreys.com/2017/03/taking-townhouse-route-heres-need-know-condo-vs-freehold/Stu Sells Realty Team. Detached vs. Semi-detached Houses: a Buyer’s Comparison. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: https://stusells.ca/detached-vs-semi-detached-houses/The Princes Foundation. [2019]. Housing Britain: A call to Action. Retrieved from: https://princes-foundation.org/resourcesTownhomes Image [page 13 right]. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/513551163739480631/?lp=trueWaugh Thistleton Architects. Webpage. Murray Grove: the original Timber Tower. Accessed 2019. Retrieved from: http://waughthistleton.com/murray-grove/Zylski, T. [2019]. BBGK explores potential of prefabrication with red concrete housing block in Poland. Dezeen. Retrieved from: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/06/20/bbgk-sprzeczna-4-warsaw-poland/
ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY REPORT | COUNTY OF WELLINGTON404444440000000000040ATTATTATTATTAAINAINAABLABLABLABLE HE HE HE HOUSOUSOUSOUSOINGINGINGINGSTSTSTTRATRATRATRATEGYEGYEGYEREREREPORPORPORT T || COUCOUCOUCONTNTNTNTYNOFOFOFOFOFWEWEELLILLILLINGTNGNGTONONNNWESTON CONSULTINGplanning + urban design