HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-69-8460 44,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
HAMPTON, ONTARIO
LOB 1JO
R. DUPUIS, P. ENG., DIRECTOR
TEL. (416) 263 -2231
987 -5039
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
MEETING OF JULY 3, 1984.
REPORT NO.: WD -69 -84
SUBJECT: BLACK CREEK DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS RECONSTRUCTION
OF NASH ROAD FRONTAGE.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended:
1. That where there is no direct access from lots in a
residential subdivision to an abutting Town road, the
developer's contribution toward reconstructing said road
along his frontage be reduced to twenty -five percent
(25 %) from fifty percent (50 %).
REPORT:
The Black Creek Developments Ltd. subdivision depicted on
the attached is located in Courtice south of Nash Road and
east of Windsor Valley Place. The subdivision agreement and
engineering drawings are in the process of being finalized,
and the developer would like to commence construction within
the next month.
...2
1�
�Q�
Page 2
REPORT NO. WD -69 -84
He would, however, like the Town to reconsider its
position with respect to the required cash contribution for
reconstruction of Nash Road along his frontage. The Works
Department, consistent with past practice, has requested
fifty percent contribution towards construction of a two
lane urban collector. The developer considers a twenty -five
percent contribution to be more reasonable and proposes to
appear as a delegation and express his viewpoint.
In a recent discussion with the developer, he has raised the
following points:
1. His subdivision has about 900 feet of frontage on Nash
Road, all of which is bounded by a one foot reserve,
which precludes access to any of the subdivision lots.
Therefore, Nash Road will not provide direct service
to his subdivision.
2. About 100 feet of this frontage will be the rear of
Dr. Madgwick's lot which presently exists, but which
will have access reoriented so that it is provided
from internal subdivision streets. This adds $15,000
to his costs.
3. The Town is requesting contribution toward an urban
collector standard which, over the length of frontage,
would add about $20,000 over the cost of an urban
local street standard.
4. Since the Town receives fifty percent subsidy from
M.T.C. on road reconstruction, the developer feels
that he should benefit from this and therefore have
his contribution reduced by half, to twenty -five
percent.
....3
Page 3
REPORT NO. WD -69 -84
The above points have been considered and generally found to
be valid. The matter of M.T.C. subsidy is however valid
only as long as the Town maintains the position that its
road reconstruction budget will not exceed the M.T.C.
approved allocation.
Other municipalities were canvassed to determine their
practices with respect to developer's contributions toward
reconstructing existing roads where there would be no direct
access to lots in the subdivision. The Region of Durham
does not collect contributions in such circumstances. The
City of Oshawa does collect contributions on collector roads
but not on arterials. The Town of Whitby does not collect
contributions where there will be no direct access to the
existing road.
It is obvious that there is a diversity in practice amongst
municipalities which leads to questions on two major points:
a) Where the road will not provide direct service to lots
in a subdivision, is it reasonable to expect the
developer to contribute toward reconstructing of same?
b) Is the purpose of road lot levys not to cover the cost
of such external services?
Responses to these questions would seem to indicate that
perhaps the Town's requirements should be relaxed and that
the proposal of the developer, i.e., a twenty -five percent
contribution may be a reasonable compromise. However, if
Council looks favourably on this approach it must take into
consideration how it will affect negotiations in other
current subdivisions and what precedent will be set for the
future.
...4
Page 4
REPORT NO. WD -69 -84
With respect to current subdivisions, we have very few large
developments being proposed and the effect inasmuch as a
changed position will probably not be great. With respect
to precedent, Council, if it considers this approach
favourably, must be very specific in its direction that such
concessions can only be made where no direct access to
subdivision lots will take place.
The above information is provided as a supplement to the
developer's delegation so that further delays can be
avoided. Hopefully, the matter can be resolved at this time
so that the proposed development can proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
R.G. Dupuis, P. Eng.,
Director of Public Works.
RGD:jco
June 26, 1984.
f