A Sarnia self-storage facility built at a former school about a decade ago is retaining its development charge exemption when building new non-serviced storage buildings.
That was the outcome of a rare two-part development charges hearing in front of city council that wrapped up earlier this month.
Council voted 8-1 — Coun. Terry Burrell was opposed — to honor what Coun. Anne Marie Gillis said was an exemption the council of the day agreed to in 2012.
Council at that time allowed the storage business to establish, against staff recommendations, in a residential neighborhood amid a groundswell of neighborhood support to prevent the former St. Margaret school building that closed in 2010 from sitting vacant, Gillis said.
“It’s obvious to anyone with eyes that this has been a wonderful addition to this residential area,” she said.
Nelmar Developments Inc., which owns Sarnia Self Storage at 720 Devine St., applied for a building permit for a new 186-square-metre (2,000-square-foot) self-storage building on the site, city documents showed.
They were billed $14,000 in development charges for the $50,000 project, which led to the appeal to council for an exemption.
The charges, billed for various types of construction, help pay for city amenities and services. Sarnia is in the midst of reviewing its current bylaw and that review is expected to incorporate recent changes provincially via the More Homes Built Faster Act.
City staff in a report said Sarnia Self Storage should be billed as per the language in the existing bylaw.
Lawyer Anthony Petrucci, acting on behalf of Nelmar, noted other municipalities exempt self-storage facilities because their function is more industrial than commercial.
He also noted company investments in stormwater management have benefited the surrounding neighborhood while many services on the site have been capped or abandoned.
The property does still have services, city community services general manager Stacey Forfar said, noting the property is zoned residential while the building is industrial under the building code. Under the development charges bylaw, the property is classified as commercial.
“Separate and distinct pieces of legislation we’re dealing with here,” she said, noting other storage facilities have been billed for development charges in the city in the past.
Whether that continues in the future may be up for discussion when the new bylaw returns to council for review, likely in March.
“We want other people to build these. We just need to make it concrete how we’re zoning them and move forward with what they’re paying,” Coun. Chrissy McRoberts said.
Asked if there will be clarity provided on the issue in the future, Forfar noted council can expect a development charges report back as per the bylaw’s standard five-year review.
“It sounds like we’re talking about multiple different things all at the same time,” Coun. Adam Kilner said amid council deliberations. At least two councilors noted the discussions were confusing.
“One of them is a good trust relationship here around these charges,” Kilner continued, “but the other piece is something that council will have to deal with in the future, perhaps not today, which is zoning.”
HAS zoning bylaw review is also underway.
Burrell said he voted in opposition because the property is paying commercial taxes and should not be eligible for an industrial exemption.
“In order to claim an industrial exemption, you should have to as a minimum be paying industrial taxes,” he said.