MattersDevelopmentBylaw No. 2275; Bylaw No. 2270; Bylaw No. 2271First seen Jul 15, 2024Last discussed Jun 29, 2026
Development amenity and housing contribution bylaws
AdoptedThe bylaws replace negotiated density bonuses with development charges for community amenities and inclusionary-zoning contributions toward affordable housing, alongside changes to reserve funds. They establish tools to secure amenities and affordable homes as development occurs; the record does not specify charge rates.
Where it stands: Bylaws adopted Jun 29, 2026.
Governing bylawNo. 2275In force
Amenity Cost Charge BylawDevelopers pay amenity cost charges when certain subdivisions are approved or building permits are issued, helping fund recreation centres, community and arts centres, and public-realm improvements. Charges apply across Langford, with exemptions including developments that are not expected to increase the population of residents or workers.
Background
Earlier and later steps of the same initiative.
Jun 15, 2026
Amenity charge and inclusionary zoning bylaws
This matter concerns bylaws on amenity costs and inclusionary zoning. The available record gives no details on who would pay, what housing provisions may apply or how the policies would work.
Jun 15, 2026 – Jun 29, 2026
New residential zones and small-scale housing
The zoning changes create four new residential zones and update rules for small-scale multi-unit housing and landscaping. They replace outdated density-bonus provisions and align Langford’s zoning with provincial housing and development-financing changes.
Timeline
Every time this matter appeared in council records, newest first.
Amenity, inclusionary-zoning and reserve-fund bylaws adopted
Council adopted the Amenity Cost Charge Bylaw, Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw, and Reserve Funds Establishment Bylaw amendment.
Discussion
Council adopted ACC and Inclusionary Zoning bylaws to require amenities and affordable housing contributions; staff and Council noted these are key tools to secure community amenities and affordable units as development occurs.
Decision: Adopted Amenity Cost Charge, Inclusionary Zoning, and reserve fund amendment bylaws.
Adopted 6–0
First, second and third readings for amenity and housing bylaws
Council gave first, second and third readings to the Amenity Cost Charge bylaw, Inclusionary Zoning bylaw, and Reserve Funds Establishment bylaw amendment to align with provincial legislation and replace the density-bonus framework.
Discussion
Council approved an ACC and IZ approach to replace negotiated density bonusing, with consultants recommending rates that align with current market feasibility; Council directed staff to implement the bylaws and related policy updates, understanding rates will be reviewed as markets evolve.
Decision: Gave first to third readings to amenity cost charge, inclusionary zoning and reserve fund bylaws.
Passed
Three consultant presentations: Transportation Master Plan/ATP; Waste Management NRFP Scope; Amenity Cost Charge and Inclusionary Zoning bylaws.
- Steve Niesh (Latoria Road)Mixed · 775 Latoria Road development
Supports creek-protection commitments, but asks council to make restoration and runoff controls rezoning conditions and add green infrastructure. - A residentConcerned · Luxton Road traffic and Transportation Master Plan
Opposes added Luxton Road development without traffic safety measures, requesting traffic calming, enforcement, truck controls, sidewalks, and better master plan engagement timing. - Chad BrydenMixed · Multifamily building stratification
Supports removing multifamily stratification, but asks council to reduce the proposed amenity contribution from $7,500 to $2,500 for affected projects. - L PlompMixed · Facilities plan, primary-care lease, and 775 Latoria Road
Supports regional facilities planning and the primary-care lease; asks for replacement trees, rain gardens, and resident power washing to address Latoria development impacts. - Joel Leodakis (Reddington Avenue)Mixed · Multifamily building stratification
Supports ending stratification, but asks council to lower the proposed per-unit amenity contribution, citing housing viability and federal rental incentives. - Jim HartshornOpposes · Multifamily building stratification
Opposes the stratification requirement and asks council to reconsider proposed fees and seek economic analysis of their effects on housing viability. - Chris Sapine (representing Gordon Gordon)Supports · Multifamily building stratification
Supports repealing the stratification requirement, arguing eligibility for the federal GST rebate would help rental projects remain viable and deliver housing.
- Steve Niesh (Latoria Road)Mixed · 775 Latoria Road development