Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-57-89DN: G/FL I N TOWN OF NEWCASTLE General Purpose and Administration Committee Monday, March 6, 1989 PD-57-89 FIE #: LD 134/88 MR. & MRS. FLINTOFF - REQUEST FOR REFUND OF LOT LEVIES LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE APPLICATION LD 134/88 RECOMMENDATIONS: 5 (f) File #_ Res. # By-Law # It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-57-89 be received; and 2. THAT Mr. and Mrs. Flintoff be advised that the Town of Newcastle is not prepared to refund any portion of the lot levy related to Application LD 134/88. 1. ORIGIN: At its meeting held on February 13, 1989, Council directed Staff to investigate the matter of a levy refund requested by Mr. and Mrs. Flintoff and report back to Committee. 2. BACKGROUND: 2.1 On March 14, 1988 the Durham Land Division Committee approved Mr. and Mrs. Flintoff's land severance application subject to conditions, one of which stated that the applicant is to satisfy the Town of Newcastle requirements, financial and otherwise. It should be noted that ...2 l . " •, l S• PAGE 2 -------_ a---- m-----°------------------- -------------- °- -_ - --- --------®--------_-- detailed requirements of the Town were provided to the Durham Land Division Committee prior to its approval of the application which among other matters, required the applicant to pay to the Town of Newcastle, the appropriate lot development charges. 2.2 The Land Division Committee, in approving the application, noted in their decision that the last date for fulfilling the stated conditions was Friday March 24, 1989. 3. COMMENTS: 3.1 The conditions of approval recommended by Town Staff stated "the applicant pay the Town appropriate lot development charges ". As noted in Staff Report PD -20 -89 in regard to Mrs. Sragg's request for refund of lot levy charges, the word "appropriate" was not defined but has always been intended to mean that the rate of levy will be determined at time of payment. It was precisely this reason that Staff did not specify the amount in our conditions of approval. 3.2 Staff would note this procedure has been observed in all development applications, including the consideration of Plans of Subdivision. The provisions of the Town's Subdivision Agreement state that the owner agrees to any annual adjustment of development charges and that the adjustment charges are applicable to all lots in the Plan for which development charges are due and unpaid. 3.3 As previously confirmed in Staff Report PD- 20 -89, Staff in commenting to the Land Division Committee state that the payment of development charges are subject to change as approved by Council from time to time. ...3 5 JI REPORT N0.: PD-57-89 PAGE 3 _______________________________________________________________________________ 3.4 It is staff's opinion that the development charges as requested and timing of payment are consistent with the policy recommendations as endorsed by Council in the Town's review of a "Development Charge Policy Study" as approved by Council in September, 1988. 3.5 Accordingly Staff cannot support the refund as requested. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee -------------------------- -T�—' --------------- Franklin WO' M°C.I.P. Lawreu Kotoeff Director of Planning 6 Development Cbief n�6iatcative Officer 77 " LDT*DW*co *Attach. February 16, 1989 ' �77 �) ] L