HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-133-971-1/
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DN:ENGLISH.GPA
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #r t.
Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 Res. # s
Report #: PD- 133 -97 File #: PLN 20.4.3 By -law #
Subject: DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY -LAW COMPLAINT
OWNER: DAVID ENGLISH
PART OF LOTS 31 AND 32, CONCESSION 8, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF
DARLINGTON
1599 CONCESSION ROAD 9, MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD- 133 -97 be received;
2. THAT the development charge applied to the property located within Part of Lots
31 and 32, Concession 8, former Township of Darlington, known municipally as
1599 Concession Road No. 9 was a correct application of the Municipality's
Development Charge By -law 92 -105 and that Mr. English's request for a refund
be DENIED; and
3. THAT Mr. David English be advised of Council's decision.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Mr. David English, by correspondence in 1996 requested Council's interpretation
of the Development Charges By -law, in essence dealing with the provision
requiring the payment of a Development Charge for the subjects lands.
1.2 It was Mr. English's opinion that in light of the specific provisions contained in the
Development Charges By -law addressing residential buildings or structures that
predate the By -law, an exemption from the payment of the Development Charge
was warranted.
1.3 Council, in considering Mr. English's request, endorsed the following
recommendations contained within Staff Report PD -16 -97 (Attachment No. 1):
"THAT Report PD -16 -97 be received;
PAGE 2
THAT Mr. David English's request for an exemption to the Municipality's
Development Charge By -law 92 -105, as amended, for the property located in Part
of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 8, former Township of Darlington be DENIED; and
THAT Mr. David English be advised of Council's decision."
1.4 Following Council's consideration of Staff Report PD- 16 -97, Mr. English submitted
an "appeal" with respect to Council's decision. Staff by correspondence advised
Mr. English that under the relevant provisions of the Development Charges Act,
a complaint in writing (or appeal as he submitted) could only be filed after a
building permit had been issued and the appropriate development charge paid
to the Municipality.
1.5 A building permit was issued on May 12, 1997 and Mr. English subsequently
submitted a complaint in writing (Attachment No. 2) pursuant to the requirements
of the Development Charges Act.
2. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT
2.1 The Development Charges Act provides the mechanism for an owner to complain,
in writing, to the Council of the Municipality in respect of the Development Charge
imposed by the Municipality on the Owner's development.
2.2 Under Section 8, a complaint can be based on the following:
1) The amount of the Development Charge imposed was incorrect or was
based on incorrect data;
2) The amount credited to the Owner under Section 13 is incorrect;
3) The amount of a previous development charge under Section 14 is
incorrect; or
-�
PAGE 3
4) There was an error in the application of the Development Charge By -law.
2.3 Mr. English did not specifically state in his complaint letter the relevant subsection
that he was filing his complaint under. It is staff's understanding, based on the
content of his letter, the complaint has been filed under Subsection (4) - that there
was an error in the application of the Development Charge By -law.
2.4 The Act requires that Council shall give the complainant the opportunity to make
representation to Council. Notice, according to the Development Charges Act,
is to be given to the Owner. After hearing the evidence and submissions of the
complainant, the Council may:
(a) confirm the development charge; or
(b) amend the development charge to the extent that, in the opinion of
Council, a review of any or all of the matters justify such an amendment.
2.5 The Clerk, within fifteen (15) days of Council's decision, must give written notice
of the decision to the Owner and confirm the last day for the filing of an appeal
to the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to the decision.
3. STAFF COMMENTS
3.1 Following receipt of Mr. English's written complaint in May, the Clerk's
Department advised Mr. English that in accordance with Section 8(4) of the
Development Charges Act, a hearing had been scheduled for July 7, 1997, in the
Council Chambers, Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanville.
3.2 Mr. English, at the public hearing, advised that he had paid lot levies on the
b b 't
11.11:4061mil .�
PAGE 4
former school property and a building permit had been issued. However, he was
now requesting that the levies be refunded as Section 7 of the Municipality's by-
law states that charges will be reduced if the permit is issued for a redevelopment
of land, a residential building or structure existing on the land within 24 months
prior to the payment of the Development Charges.
3.3 In light of Mr. English's presentation, Council endorsed the following resolution:
"THAT the comments of David English, with respect to the Municipality's
Development Charge By -law, be acknowledged with thanks."
3.4 As noted in paragraph 2.4 of this report, Council upon hearing the evidence of a
complaint, must either confirm that the application of the Development Charge
was correct or amend the Development Charge.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 In light of Council's previous consideration of Mr. English's request within the
context of Staff Report PD -16 -97 and pursuant to the requirement of the
Development Charges Act, it is respectfully recommended that Committee and
Council endorse the recommendation contained within this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
LT *FW *df
11 September 1997
Reviewed by,
W.H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
Attachment No. 1: Report PD -16 -97
Attachment No. 2: Complaint from David English dated May 26, 1997
REPORT NO.: PD- 133 -97
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Mr. David English
6216 Clemens Road
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1 C 3K6
i
660
PAGE 5
ATTACHMENT NO 1
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DN:PD -1 6-a7
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administrative Committee
Date: Monday, January 20, 1997
Report #:
PD -16 -97 File #File #: PLN. 20.4.3
File #
Res. #
By-law #
Subject: OWNER: DAVID CHAR SH BY -LAW EXCEPTION REQUEST
PART OF LOT 31 & 32, CONCESSION 8
FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
1599 CONCESSION ROAD NO. 9
MUNICIPALITY OF CAARINGTON
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -16 -97 be received;
2. THAT Mr. David English's request for an exemption to the Municipality's
Development Charge By -law 92 -105, as amended, for the property located in part
of Lot 31, 31, Concession 8, former Township of Darlington be denied; and
3. THAT Mr. David English be advised of Council's decision.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 By correspondence, a copy of which is attached to this report, Mr. David English
has requested Council's interpretation, in essence, of an exemption to the
Municipality's Development Charges By -law requiring the payment of a
development charge for the subject lands.
1.2 It is Mr. English's opinion that in light of the specific provisions contained in the
Development Charges By -law addressing residential buildings or structures that
predate the by -law, an exemption from the payment of the development charge
is warranted.
1.3 Council, in light of Mr. English's request endorsed the following resolution:
66J
REPORT PD -16 -97 PAGE 2
"THAT the correspondence received from David English regarding the
interpretation of the Development Charges By -law 92 -105 be received:
THAT the correspondence be referred to the Director of Planning and
Development for review and preparation of a report to be submitted to the
General Purpose and Administration Committee; and
2. MUNICIPALITY'S DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY -LAW 92 -105
2.1 The Municipality's Development Charges Policy Report provided the background
principles and direction through which the Development Charges Quantum was
calculated, culminating in the enactment of the Development Charges By -law 92-
105.
2.2 Within the Development Charges By -law, Section 2(1) states that development
charges are to be imposed against all land in the Municipality including all
existing lots of records. This principle is based on the fact that residential
development would increase the need for services. Therefore, where a building
permit has not been issued, a development charge will be required prior to its
eventual issuance.
2.3 Section 7 within the Development Charges By -law states that where a residential
building or structure existing on the land within 24 months prior to the payment
of development charges was, or is to be demolished in whole or in part, the
payment of the relevant development charge, (that is at the time the building
permit is to be issued), is to be credited for the pre- existing unit(s).
2.4 Mr. English has indicated in his request to Council that the building on site was
a schoolhouse until the late 70's when it was converted to a residence. Later, a
fire made the central building un- inhabitable. A site inspection by staff confirms
that the building has been demolished in part. The roofing, flooring, doors and
668
REPORT PD -16-97 PAGE 3
windows have been removed, leaving three (3) partial walls standing, one of
which is overgrown with vegetation.
3. STAFF COMMENTS
3.1 Prior to Council's approval of Development Charges By -law 92 -105, the payment
of a lot levy for a dwelling on an existing lot of record was not required.
Accordingly, the collection of a development charge as now required in By -law
92 -105 is reasonable and should not be considered a double charge. The
exemption provided for residential units demolished, in whole or in part, within 24
months of the enactment of the Development Charge By -law was to provide a
reasonable time frame for those property owners who intend to rebuild.
3.2 Staff in reporting to Council on similar requests, have noted that Development
Charge By -laws of neighbouring municipalities also contain similar provisions
providing an exemption from payment of a development charge where a dwelling
unit was demolished in whole or part, within the period of 24 to 36 months prior
to the date their respective by -laws were passed.
3.3 Despite Mr. English's submission that there was a dwelling on this property in the
late 70's until a fire destroyed it, the fact remains that the Municipality requires
development charges to finance capital works and services to meet the need of
population growth. The new dwelling that would have to be erected on the
subject property will bring a new family to the Municipality and will consume
various municipal services. For this reason alone, an exemption should not be
granted. In as much as the building has been partially demolished, staff would
also note the 24 month exemption time frame would not be applicable as it
applies to any building that has been demolished in whole or in part.
3.4 In the event Council deems it appropriate to consider an exemption, an
amendment to the Development Charge By -law pursuant to the provisions of the
69
REPORT PD -16 -97 PAGE 4
Development Charges Act would be required. The Act requires Council to hold
at least one (1) public meeting. Notice of the public meeting is to be provided by
placing an advertisement in the local newspaper(s). The public meeting itself,
cannot be held any earlier than twenty (20) days after the notice appears in the
newspaper(s).
3.5 Following the holding of the public meeting, should Council deem it appropriate
to amend the Development Charges By -law, the Clerk is required within fifteen
(15) days of the by -law's passage to advertise its enactment in the local
newspaper(s). The notice of passage would also specify the last day for filing
and appeal. The associated costs of providing the public notifications throughout
the process excluding staff time, is approximately on thousand ($1,000.00) dollars
which is borne by the Municipality.
4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1 In light of the above noted comments, staff respectfully recommends that Mr.
English's requested interpretation of the Development Charges By -law which
would in essence be an exemption to the payment of the Municipality's
development charge be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
LT *FW *km
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
W.H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative
Officer
0
REPORT PD -16 -97 PAGE 5
9 January 1997
Attachment #1 - Key Map
Attachment #2 - David English's letter
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Mr. D. English
R.R. #5
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K6
6f
z
0
z
0
0
cy-
w
z
J
Z
O
SUBJECT SITE
1599 CONCESSION ROAD 9
35 34 33 32 31 30
�i i I ii i 0)
II U
II z
I II 0
' CO CESSION O D 9 U
it I II
II I II
II I II
II II
II I II
D
DIaG°3f�OMn C�40o [� o„
II II
00
II
�
II
Q
z
�
_0
II ii
U)
W
II
U
II
II
II
LL-
z
Z
II
I
W
0
II
II
II
II
II
II
REGI II L RO
D
I I
I
D
DIaG°3f�OMn C�40o [� o„
COUNCIL DIRECTION D-4
General Purpose anti Administration Committee,
Municipaiivy of Clarington. AUG 3
10
Dear Councilors:
I
It .
Recently , a question of interpretation of By-law 92-M
has arisen. WhAle the By-law deals with complex issues and
philosophies, the case I'm asking you to adjudicate
ultimately hinges on tne meaning of one word. You can, 1
think, resolve this easily.
The Development Cnarges By-law ;92-105; spec fies on
pages 7 and 8 the conditions under which development. charges
have to be paid before one can obtain a building permit.
However, section seven specifies that if structures
pre-existed the by-law , the property would be exempT from
development charges if the buildings were demolished within a
two-year period prior to the building permiE applicanion. it
is our contention that the property on i590 Concession 8.
Enfield Road conforms to the conditions specified in the
By-law and hence is exempt from the development marges.
The building was a schoolhouse until the !are '70's,
when it was converted to a residence. Later, a fire made the
central building un-inhabitable. Since we now want to
demolish nhe buildings, we wish to clarify the application of
section seven which begins "Notwithstanding any other
provision of this By- law....
in crtiversarions with The Development Review Branch on
August jsv and Ttn, reference was made to the fact. that no
one has been iiving at i599 Enfield Road for the past two
years. Note, however. that the By-law makes no mention of
the issue of habitation. it does directly addresS The issue
of demon -ion. Certainly, no lexicograpner or Mge wouid
accept non - occupation as a detinition of demolition. Peopie
may assume that the ry-law addresses the issue of habitation,
nu7 it does not.
Neignoonring Sur nsdinvions ,win h analogous ny-iaws, use
one wal, -standing" as the a.:id test Ko determine ar a qowse
has been aemoKshed. 0snawa uses a mere liberal an' riaver
definati : in my nonversaLions witb a planner foI e it
of Oshawa on july 31s-M," memo lished" waF definev
"flatteneW.
The Oxford dicrionary defines demo iisn as nbat 7ey n.,'
crush to pieces WuMing. structure...)". Thn enclose,Ji
pictures ( show LE19 a recent Toronto Star head linqi wiLl show
chat the bui,dirA alesil� his nOT been Of,nhea t- PISCM�,
6/3
Please note i'ia- we are n;-)t seeking an exception to the
Development RaLhe]', we are reqiio--,stin.9 the
terms of Bv- t -aw 9:_ -: 05 be v)onol�rt=Q, Clari.nqT-,,..)n c.annor
a-:1)iirai-aly of the B-v.,,aw af -cer the far:t.
,--�eczion seven ;.Qa(,!e The condiT:ons tinder which
exceptions are made, any other
provisions..."
The shed, in particular needs to be demolished.
Recognition from council that this has not been done tail-i
allow us to clean tip the property before applying for a
building permit .
'Thank you for E.aki.nq the rime to clarltv th,s isstze.
David Enq!-Ls.1-1,
R. 5 owmanviii.e, On LIC 3Y.6
August 8/96
6/4
ii:li Jr, , f j j (,I , I
1WImto cjnjr,
HHOW"alkv "I C01111won.
ATTACHMENT NO 2
IjAy Zr) I/ -'Ij q,l
po
i (0 00 ki-viov p"I I nA
Th-
.- I !Mal n. Ili
1-10 Ho P-w! ion pvow n! cidl I "of -l)
hin v0 K h ry kpw q! NP-P i hit
0-1 w 1 nini i w, oHv W m n- w lnp�
Ihin
d 1- 1. ^ 1 1 chat nipp ly to Pip h-mulinh";
of 10 pmr, h-
('1+01 w l"R ruphl", who 1 1 h',
if 1 f
Yi, (11
iU;j I l! 1 jl�,I 1 )]it ;,t, '",� I 11 if ill
noi
(,;, '' 1 1 f
ky
4