Surrey council recently endorsed a preferred new Development Cost Charge (DCC) option, which requires provincial approval prior to final adoption.
The province had reviewed a proposed earlier DCC bylaw which resulted in the government raising several administrative and DCC fee equity concerns.
The province asked that the city make further changes to the proposed bylaw to better align with legislation and recently updated DCC best practices guidelines, including the time of collection of fees.
City staff would meet with the province and retained external legal counsel to review and draft the bylaw amendments.
The changes include Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) developments.
A report notes that, historically, developments with fewer than four residential units per development were exempt from DCCs.
However, with recent changes in provincial housing legislation to allow for SSMUH, there “is the potential for a large number of SSMUHs within the city and this increase in population will impact the city’s fire, infrastructure and parks servicing requirements, and as such it is important to ensure that these types of housing form contribute to DCC’s and maintain the approach that ‘growth pays for growth.’”
The province recommended that additional language be added to clarify that the housing form, such as a houseplex, duplex or garden suite, is required to now pay DCCs.
Further work has also been done to engage with the development community regarding DCC fees for SSMUHs, the report notes, adding that since September 2024, the city has received applications for about 165 SSMUH duplex, 85 coach house, 200 garden suite, and six houseplexes.
The revised rules include the first residential unit in SSMUH being exempt as DCCs were paid for a house as part of original subdivision, while DCCs are charged for additional dwelling units such as coach houses.
The report also notes members of the development industry contacted the city expressing concerns over the affordability of DCCs on SSMUHs, particularly the cumulative effect of municipal and regional DCCs. Consequently, staff revisited the impact ratios for SSMUHs on municipal infrastructure, relative to townhouses and apartments, and proposed a few reductions.
“As there is no established demand for SSMUH developments, it is important to not limit the potential implementation of these new units, and that DCC rates and impact ratios should be reviewed following two or more years of experience,” the report notes.
The report adds that other municipalities, Metro Vancouver and TransLink had also exempted DCC’s for laneway homes/coach houses/garden suites as they were considered as part of the original “per lot” DCC rate at subdivision, however, most organizations anticipate changing to require DCCs for those types of units using either a townhouse or apartment rate, consistent with the Surrey staff recommended approach.
