HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-16-97DN:PD -16 -97 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administrative Committee File #
Date: Monday, January 20, 1997 Res. q 7
Report #: PD -16 -97 File #: File #: PLN. 20.4.3 By -law #
Subject: DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY -LAW EXEMPTION REQUEST
OWNER: DAVID ENGLISH
PART OF LOT 31 & 32, CONCESSION 8
FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
1599 CONCESSION ROAD NO. 9
MUNICIPALITY OF CLALINGTON
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:
NOW
AMMMASAM
"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
2.1 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
We
REPO. 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
•�i
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,
i \
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
LT *FW *km
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
fi qv--,", L�-
R
W.H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative
Officer
699
.-.e .l
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
L1 C 3K6
Molt
PAGE 5
0
Z
•
w.
z'
J
Z
O
H
I II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
�I I
3 REG104AL RO D
D
KEY HAP
60002
ffFIll-
3% U
00
z
o
o
�
N
J
Z
Z
w
O
3% U
COUNCIL DIRECTION D -4
General Purpose and Administration Commltree,
Municipailty of Clarington. AUG o
3 23 In °96
Dear Councillors:
Recently , a question of interpretation of By-law 92 -105
has arisen. While the By -iaw deals with complex issues and
philosophies, the case I'm asking you to adjudicate
ultimately hinges on the meaning of one word. You can, 1
think, resolve this easily.
The Development Charces By -law (92 -105? specifies on
pages 7 and 3 the condi-tions 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 exempr. from
development charges if the buildings were demolished within a
two -year period prior to the building permit application. it
is our con - ention that the property on 1599 Concession o.
Enfield Road conforms to the conditions specified in the
By -law and hence is exempt from the development cha.raes.
The building was a schoolhouse until. the late '70's,
when it was converted to a residence. Later, a fire made the
central building un- inhabitable. Since we now want to
demolish the buildings, we wish to clarify the application of
section seven which begins "Notwithstanding any other
provision of this By- law....
In conversations with the Development Review Branch on
August 1st and 7th, ref"- rence was made to the fact that no
one has i�een living at 11599 Enfield ?load for the past two
year;. Note, however, that the By-law makes no mention of
the issue of habitation. it does directly address the issue
of demoliri.on. Cert.ainiy, no iexicoarap;ier or juage would
accept non - occupation as a definition of demolition. People
may assume that the i . -lair addresses %he issue of habitation,
but it noes not.
Neignbourina jurisdictions,with analogous by -iaws, use
„one wal standing" as the acid test to determine if a noose
has been demolished. Oshawa uses a more liberal. and, clearer
in my conversaLions with a planner for t; e City
of Oshawa on July 31.s-i/96," demolished" was detinen as
"flattened ".
The Oxford dictionary defines 'demolish' as ;'batr.er or
crush to pieces (building, structure...) ". The enclosed
pictures (showing a recenr. Toronto Star headlines will show
that the building clearly has not been crushed to pieces,
FOOn3
Please note than_ we are not seeking an exception to the
Development. Charges Jay -jaw. Rather, we are requesting the
terms of By -law 92 -105 be honoured. Clarington cannot
a=rbitrarily re i.ef_ine the terrn -. of the ByLaw after the fact.
Section seven (;page 11_) specifies the conditons under which
exceptions are made, "Notwithstanding any other
provisions..,"
The shed, in particular needs to be demolished.
Recognition from council that. this has not been done will
allow us to clean up the property before applying_ for a
building permit.
Thank you for taking the _ime to clarify this issue.
David English,
R. 5 owmanville, Can L1C 3K6
August 8/96
.111
iI 'j1