Councillors (eventually) relent on $3.1M development charge on Cross Cultural Learner Centre’s affordable housing high-rise for newcomers

CTV London’s Daryl Newcombe with the latest regarding a development charge dispute with the Cross Cultural Learner Centre.

A tie-vote at London City Hall almost derailed the financial plans for the Cross Cultural Learner Centre’s (CCLC’s) 24-storey housing project in the Old East Village, until three councillors relented.

On Monday, members of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee reconvened as a special Tribunal to consider a complaint that CCLC’s planned apartment tower at 763-773 Dundas St. should receive a full exemption from paying Development Charges (DCs).

“We never contemplated that the Doorway to Dreams project would not qualify for a full exemption,” explained Laura McFalls, the lawyer representing the agency.

At least 30 per cent of the 247 apartments will be affordable housing, and 22 per cent of the units will be accessible.

However, city staff only exempted $1.4 million in DCs for the 75 affordable units and billed the agency $3.1 million for the remaining market rent units.

The Development Charges Act states that only non-profit organizations whose “primary objective” is housing can qualify for a full exemption.

A staff report reads, “The applicant, CCLC, provides many services and self describes as ‘London’s leading re-settlement agency,’ to provide integration services and support to newcomers and to promote intercultural awareness and understanding.”

Deputy Chief Building Official Kyle Wilding confirmed to the Tribunal, “The primary or main objective of the organization is why the development wasn’t passed.”

McFalls argued that housing is a critical part of providing settlement services for newcomers to Canada and 90 per cent of CCLC’s capital assets are currently housing.

Mayor Josh Morgan agreed with CCLC, “A solid case can be made that if the project were to proceed, it would be one of the most significant projects that the organization would be taking on.”

However, a motion brought forward by Coun. Hadleigh McAlister and seconded by Coun. Corrine Rahman recommended dismissing the agency’s complaint and upholding the decision by city staff to charge $3.1 million.

The motion was defeated on a tie-vote 3-3 with McAlister, Rahman, and Van Meerbergen in support, and Morgan, Franke, and Stevenson opposed.

Coun. Susan Stevenson then proposed a motion that would support the appeal and waive all DCs on the development.

“I’m convinced that, given the discussion we’ve heard today, the primary objective for CCLC is housing,” stated Coun. Skylar Franke.

With the Tribunal at risk of deadlock, and the affordable housing project at stake, several councillors explained why they were relenting.

“I can see why this [issue] is in front of us today,” said Coun. Rahman. “I’m willing to support [the motion] on the floor in order to move this item forward.”

McAlister expressed concern that the decision could set a precedent for more appeals in the future, but supported Stevenson’s motion as well.

“I view housing more on the permanency side. I think, with settlement services, a lot of it’s more of a temporary basis,” McAlister explained.

Stevenson’s motion that recommended waiving all of the Development Charges was unanimously supported 6-0.

Mayor Josh Morgan said he intends to speak to Rob Flack, Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about the need to clarifying how municipalities are supposed to determine an agency’s “primary objective” when considering an exemption.

“A $3 million decision based on the interpretation of two words in the Act, is not the greatest position to be in,” asserted Morgan.

Council will make a final decision about the DC exemption Jan. 20.