At their regular meeting on July 7th, Council adopted the proposed Interim Policy for Community Amenity Contributions (CAC) following the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling the previous CAC policy as invalid.  

Prepared by legal counsel, the interim CAC Policy directs staff to:  

• discuss with development applicants the prospect of making amenity contributions to the Township;  

• negotiate with development applicants on a case-by-case basis for the provision of community amenities, as part of a Phased Development Agreement; or  

• consider amenity contributions either at the initiative of development applicants or as a result of rezoning negotiations between the applicant and the Township.  

The interim policy would be in effect until all in-stream development applications, as of the date of policy adoption, were processed.  

The Township has been preparing an Amenity Cost Charge (ACC) bylaw, pursuant to the Local Government Act. The draft ACC bylaw will be presented to Council for consideration of first reading in the near future. Provincial guidance suggests that a Public Information Session be conducted after first reading and before second reading. It is anticipated that the Public Information Session will take place in early fall, with a timeframe for Council to consider subsequent bylaw readings before the end of 2025. 

Additional information can be found in the full  report by Township staff. 

June 24, 2025

On June 20th, the Lorval Developments Ltd. v. Langley (Township) Supreme Court of BC decision was released. Lorval sought “… to quash or set aside the CAC Policy or alternatively the June 10, 2024 amendment to the CAC Policy, for being beyond Langley’s statutory authority (i.e. ultra vires).” 

The Hon. Justice Coval ruled in favour of Lorval, stating that “… the CAC Policy as a whole … does represent a mandatory amenity payment regime in exchange for certain, specified rezonings. As a matter of law, such a regime cannot be imposed without the appropriate statutory authority which does not exist. The CAC Policy is therefore set aside as invalid.” 

UDI is still reviewing the case and its potential broader implications. In addition, the decision may be appealed. The case will be discussed at UDI’s annual Fall Tax & Legal Update.