The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD-2024-282, dated June 6, 2024, recommending adoption of an Official Plan Amendment; adoption of a demolition control By-law; and, approval of the Proposed Rental Replacement By-law. In addition, the Committee was in receipt of written submissions from T. Cassidy, J. Wells and S. Litt related to the proposed Rental Replacement By-law.
Rosa Bustamante, Director, Planning and Housing Policy and Lucas Van Meer-Mass, Senior Planner (Housing), presented the report. L. Van Meer-Mass spoke to the policy content and provided an overview about how the By-law is intended to be imposed.
Shaun Mackinnon, Cressidia Claveau, Megan Walker, Social Development Centre, Sally Gunz, Lynn Intini, ACORN, Peggy Nickels on behalf of the Victoria Park Development Committee, Acer Bonaparte, Waterloo Region ACORN, Mohammad Yosef, Sam Jacques, Ryan Murdock and Chris Varga spoke in support of the proposed Rental Replacement By-law. Various reasons were expressed in support of the By-law; including but not limited to its ability to help maintain existing affordable housing supply; and its ability to compel developers to provide aid to existing tenants in the event redevelopment is proposed. Delegations requested that the By-law be approved immediately, but where possible further amendments should be considered to include additional regulations, such as: where a tenant has been displaced from their home due to a renovation, the existing tenant should be provided first right of refusal at the rental rate that they were paying prior to being displaced; the inclusion of the affordable housing definition, as defined by Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC); and, the removal of the 10 year time limit requirement to provide replacement units at affordable rents.
Ashley Schuitema, Waterloo Region Community Legal Services, addressed Committee in support of the recommendation as outlined in Report DSD-2024-282. A. Schuitema encouraged the City to continue to seek creative options to prevent renovictions. A. Schuitema requested some clarity, where the tenant has the right to return, that the unit would be provided at the same rate that they were paying when they were living in the unit, or that the unit would be offered to a new tenant at the same rate. A. Schuitema further advised that an affordable unit should be offered at the same rate as it was previously to the unit. A. Schuitema spoke to 18.c. of the proposed By-law and the onus being on the developer to advise the tenant about the renovation, that the onus be shifted to the municipality rather than the developer. A. Schuitema stated the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) is also in crisis, noting that the City should continue to seek options for enforcement. A. Schuitema then responded to questions from the Committee. A. Schuitema indicated while it is recognized that the municipality is not fully responsible related to the this issue, the City can be an active participant to trying to support this issue.
Questions were raised regarding the proposed 10-year timeline as outlined within the By-law, L. Van Meer-Mass stated for the 10-year time limit to be imposed, the City would need to register an agreement on title of the subject property and then rely on relationships with the tenants to confirm compliance. In response to further questions, L. Van Meer-Mass indicated of the four municipalities that have approved similar By-laws, none of which have been challenged legally to date. Questions were raised related to possible appeals against the By-law, M. Goss indicated the proposed By-law if approved, it under the provisions of the authority granted to the municipality through the Municipal Act and there are no appeal mechanism for such approvals.
In response to questions, G. Stevenson stated this By-law should be looked at through a greater context, the City continues to be a leader in Planning, noting there have been challenges identified with the rental housing market. G. Stevenson indicated there are areas within the City that are under utilized, the proposed by-law would rebalance the interests, that would allow an increase to housing supply but if displacement should occur, those units would then need to be replaced.
Councillor M. Johnston left the meeting at this time.
Questions were raised about the opportunity for a developer to offer tenants relocation into another site that they manage or own, noting a previous instance where a developer sought a Planning approval and offered to relocate the tenants to an alternative site that they owned. L. Van Meer-Mass acknowledge the question, noting they could look into that option further.
Councillor M. Johnston returned to the meeting at this time.
In response to questions, related to whether the Rental Replacement By-law requirements for replacing affordable units in new development be combined with the City’s Not-For-Profit Affordable Rental and Co-Op Housing Incentive program, R. Bustamante advised staff could provide additional information to Council prior to the June 24, 2024 Council meeting.
Questions were raised regarding the development applications that have been approved by Council in the past couple of years and questioned how many of the applications would have been subject to this By-law if it was in force and effect. N. Goss stated staff reviewed the approvals from the past 5 to 10 years, noting 3 applications would have been subject to the By-law as proposed. N. Goss stated for an exact number of residential units, staff would need to follow up on that information.
In response to questions, L. Van Meer-Mass indicated the By-law has three different options proposed within the By-law stating each tenant would have the opportunity to select their preferred solution. In response to further questions, R. Bustamante advised staff attended an industry Development Committee on two separate occasions to share the proposed By-law. R. Bustamante noted the industry shared some concerns with the financial impacts of the proposed By-law, but did also recognize this as a priority of Council's and in general were open to continuing discussions about how it may impact their projects.
Questions were raised regarding the 6-unit threshold, L. Van Meer-Mass noted that threshold has been outlined in the Municipal Act. In response to further questions, N. Goss advised this tool is intended to run parallel with the Inclusionary Zoning by-law. G. Stevenson indicated they are separate tools, Inclusionary Zoning is intended to allow for an increase of affordable housing, whereas this By-law is specifically intended for rental replacement.
Councillor S. Davey brought forward a motion to approve the recommendation as outlined in Report DSD-2024-282.
Councillor S. Stretch brought forward an amendment to Councillor Davey's motion to include an additional clause within the recommendation as follows: "That staff be directed to report come back in June 2025 reviewing impacts of the By-law thus far and to provide a further updates on any other “renovictions” By-laws within Ontario."
Councillor D. Chapman advised that she wished to bring forward a further amendment to the proposed recommendation and vacated the Chair. Councillor S. Davey assumed the Chair at this time.
Councillor D. Chapman brought forward a further amendment Councillor Davey's recommendation to amend the comparable rental unit definition within the By-law to include the following…a rental unit with a quantity of rooms generally equal to the size of the unit from which the tenant is displace…”
In response to questions, R. Bustamante advised staff do not legally have the ability to enforce providing an alternative residential unit in a specific size. R. Bustamante indicated, staff have proposed a recommendation that believe is defendable and can continue to monitor its effectiveness once approved, noting it is one of three options that tenants would be able to select within the By-law, stating if a comparable unit is not available, they could select another option that would be preferable.
Councillor Chapman's amendment was then voted on and was LOST on a recorded vote, with Councillor C. Michaud, J. Deneault and D. Chapman voting in favour; and, Mayor B, Vrbanovic and Councillors B. Ioannidis, M. Johnston, S. Stretch, D. Schnider and A. Owodunni voting in opposition.
Councillor S. Stretch's amendment was then voted on and was Carried unanimously on a recorded vote.
The following motion was then voted on, on a recorded vote.