The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD-26-93 T COOF~AT'I®hJ O 1"Fi °fON O~ C`Tt~ DN: 18T82037.GPA t~eetfng: General Purpose and Administration Committee ~ffe<..1~1~ .~`v 0•~c~~ ~7 Date: F{2s. ~,- p A ° ~'at-9~ Monday, February 1, 1993 fay-Late F~epert #:.~H-2~0 33 rife -~E~T 02-93-7 Subject: SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT NEWCASTLE MEADOWS PHASE II REFUND REQUEST AND TERMINATION OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT PART OF LOT 11, CONC. 2, FORMER TOWN OF BOWMANVILLE, TOWN OF NEWCASTLE o ~teCOC31t71~tlf{~C1: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-26-93 be received; 2. THAT the request submitted by Mr. David Fine on behalf of Newcastle Meadows Inc. for the termination of the Subdivision Agreement between Newcastle Meadows Inc. and the Town of Newcastle, registered on title November 22, 1991, Instrument Number LT 572714 and for refund of all monies paid pursuant to said Agreement be denied; and 3. THAT Mr. David Fine, on behalf of Newcastle Meadows Inc. be advised of Council's decision. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Council at their December 14, 1992 meeting endorsed the following resolution: "That the delegation of Mr. David Fine, Newcastle Meadows Inc., be acknowledged and referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for review and preparation of a report to be submitted to the General Purpose and Administration Committee." 1.2 In addition to Mr. Fine's presentation to Council, staff received on December 24, 1992, correspondence providing further clarification as to the extent of Newcastle Meadows Inc.'s request of Council. Mr. Fine indicated that not only would Newcastle ~Iaad-eats I::e. recpeetf~;?' j=r-e~*~ ~ re-fund-cf ;tom ;.,;+-;a, ,~+- i payment but also a refund of the contributions made for "external ~R ~ ~ ~ AE~Y~~E ~ 6 nits is viaiureo ~.,.ecvcieu i•nee~ REPORT NO.: PD-26-93 PAGE 2 works" attributable to this development (Mann Street Storm Sewer Works) and lastly the termination of the Subdivision Agreement. The refund sought is reflected below: Schedule 'D' - 25% of levies $36,431.50 (1st instalment) External Costs 13,581.87 Mann Street Storm Sewers TOTAL $50,012.87 1.3 Mr. Fine indicated that inasmuch as the mortgagee was proceeding by Power of Sale, they were unable to perform their obligations and therefore requested the refund and termination of the Agreement. Staff were not advised as to the events which precluded Newcastle Meadows from .fulfilling their obligations under the terms of the Subdivision Agreement and proceeding with the second phase of development. 2. STAFF COMMENTS 2.1 Committee may recall, through the lot development charge exercise, because of the provisions of the Development Charges Act, the termination/expiry date of the Town's previous lot levy by-law was November 23, 1991. Subsequently, on March 23, 1992, Council passed the Town's Development Charges By-law, By-law 92-105. 2.2 Prior to the expiry date of November 23, 1991, the Town executed twelve (12) Subdivision Agreements which resulted to date in the registration of fifteen (15) M-Plans. Staff would note that the additional three (3) registrations reflected "second phases of development" as contemplated within the context of each respective Agreement. 2.3 The following chart illustrates the Subdivision Agreements completed prior to November 23, 1991 and their current status. The use of the term "status" implies that the development has proceeded through the construction stage and issuance of building permits. - X67 REPORT NO.: PD-26-93 PAGE 3, Number Plan Number Status I1. Penwest - Phase 1 40M-1669 Yes I2. Macourtice - Phase 1 40M-1675 Yes (3. Ashdale 40M-1676 Yes 4. Veltri & Sons - 40M-1680 Yes Liberty/Concession 5. Delbert #1 40M-1684 Yes 6. Delbert #2 40M-1685 Yes 7. West Bowmanville - Phase 1 40M-1686 Yes 8. Liza Development 40M-1688 Yes 9. Eiram Development - Phase 1 10M-840 Yes 10. Eiram Development - Phase II 40M-1670 Yes 11. Veltri & Sons - River Valley 40M-1691 No Construction Phase II No Permits 12. Macourtice - Phase II 40M-1693 Yes 13. Penwest - Phase II 40M-1709 Yes 14. Newcastle Meadows Plan Not No Construction Registered No Permits 15. Veltri & Sons - High Street Plan Not No Construction Registered No Permits Staff would note that only three (3) Plans of Subdivision have not proceeded past the Agreement stage. 2.4 Within each of the twelve (12) Subdivision Agreements, the timing for the payment of Lot Development Charges was consistent. with the then Town practices. For example, a one hundred (100) lot Plan of Subdivision would have the following lot levy payment schedule: i) 25% of total upon execution of the levies due Subdivision Agreement ii) 25% of total prior to the issuance of the levies due (1st) first building permit _ ~J~~~ REPORT NO.: PD-26-93 PAGE 4 iii) 25% of total prior to the issuance of the levies due fifty-first (51st) building permit or the first (1st) anniversary date of the issuance of the first (1st) building permit iv) 25% of total prior to the issuance of the levies due seventy-fifth (75th) building permit or the second (2nd) anniversary date of the issuance of the first (1st) building permit. 2.5 The Subdivision Agreements as earlier referenced, were all executed prior to the passage of the new Development Charges By-law. Inherent to each, the first levy payments were made at the time of execution of the Subdivision Agreement. It was through the execution of the Agreements that the developer was afforded the opportunity to proceed with their individual projects. This in turn would have permitted the issuance of building permits based on the levy rates contained within the Subdivision Agreement. This principle was prefaced with the understanding that any building permits not issued prior to the passage of the new Development Charge By-law would be subject to the new Development Charge rate. 2.6 Due consideration of the existing Lot Levy Reserve Funds on hand and projected to the end of 1991, formed an integral part of the Development Charge calculation exercise. These funds were envisioned within the Development Charge Policy Report to be applied to capital works as identified through the 1992 and future capital budgets. The funds were anticipated to help capital works to proceed, as approved by Council, during the transitionary phase and until sufficient funds were collected under the new Development Charges Act to allow capital works to be undertaken. In other words, the lot levies collected have been earmarked for capital works. Any refund would require complete recalculation of the rurrPnt development rr.arae quantum and could potentially cause the development charge to be adjusted upward. Therefore, It is staff's - ~ ; REPORT NO.: PD-26-93 PAGE 5 opinion the refunding of any lot levy monies received pursuant to the provisions of a Subdivision Agreement would be inappropriate in consideration of the Development Charges Policy Report. 2.7 With respect to Newcastle Meadows requests for the refunding of monies attributable to their portion of the "Mann Street Storm Sewer Oversizing Works", staff can not support same in light of the provisions contained within the 1989 Schickedanz Bros. Ltd. Subdivision Agreement, dealing with lands located to the south- east. Within the Schickedanz Bros. Agreement, Schedule "P" states that the Town has agreed to make every effort to collect from the benefitting property owners the amount specified in the "Cost Sharing Report for the Stormwater Management Works for the West Branch of the Soper Creek". In effect, this amount was collected on behalf of Schickedanz Bros. upon the execution of the Newcastle Meadows Subdivision Agreement. The applicant has not provided the Town with the authorization of Schickedanz Bros. to repay the amount to Newcastle Meadows. 2.8 In discussing-the possibilities of termination of the Subdivision Agreement with the Works Department, staff were advised that in light of the "Works" described within the Agreement, termination would place the eventual development of the lands in jeopardy of being premature. The timing of the execution of this Agreement, similar to the other (11) eleven noted in paragraph 2.2, was critical in terms of the elements contained within Schedules "J" and "G" - Works to be completed. This Agreement recognized that the Owner was responsible for the construction, to municipal standards, of the "major collector road" within the limits of the draft plan. Under the parameters of the Development Charges Act and Town Development Charges Policy Report, if an agreement were executed today, the cost of constructing the "major collector road" within the development would have to be cost-shared with the Municipality. It is staff's opinion that it would not be prudent LO exeCULe any LULUre ~uiJC11V1S1Oi1 t~c~r"eetll~I1L utlLil 5u~:11 LluiC LiiaL the Towns share of the cost for the oversizing of the "major collector road" is of a benefit to the Town. ~- - -, r REPORT NO.: PD-26-93 PAGE 6 3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 In light of the above comments, staff can not support either the refunding of any monies nor the termination of the Subdivision Agreement. Respectfully submitted,. Recommended for presentation to the Committee, J,// `~~-fi"~~ Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P. Lawrence E. Ko s ff Director of Planning Chief Adminis five and Development Officer Walter A. Evans, P.Eng. "'Director of Public Works LT*FW*ld *Attach Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: David Fine Newcastle Meadows Inc. 4300 5teeles Ave. W. Unit 17 WOODBRIDGE, Ontario L4L 4C2 71