The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD-23-95THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON DN:DEV- EXEM.GPA REPORT Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # Date: Monday, March 6, 1995 Fees. # Report #: File #: PD-23-95 PLN 20.1 Der -Lair # Subject: DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY -LAW EXEMPTION REQUEST PART LOT 5, CONCESSION 11 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON FILE: PLN 20.1 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD -23 -95 be received; 2. THAT Mr. Laskowsky's request on behalf of his client, Mr. K. Kroeger, for an exemption to the Municipality's Development Charge By -law 92 -105, for the property located at 2916 Highway No. 2 be denied; and 3. THAT Mr. Laskowsky be advised of Council's decision. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Mr. Laskowsky, on behalf of his client, Mr. Klaus Kroeger, highlighted for Council's benefit at their January 30, 1995 meeting a brief history of Mr. Kroeger's property, noting that the single family dwelling unit previously located on the property, was damaged by fire in 1982. Approximately three (3) years later, following the finalization of the fire insurance settlement, the damaged unit was torn down and removed. Mr. Laskowsky, subsequently requested Council's consideration of an exemption to the Municipality's Development Charge By -law and the payment of the appropriate development charge for his client's property. 1.2 Council, in light of Mr. Laskowsky's presentation, endorsed the following resolution: G) 1 _� RECYCLED PAP ED PAPED E YCLE NI 6 PPIRTED CN RECVCLEO PAPER REPORT NO.: PD -23 -95 PAGE 2 "THAT the correspondence dated January 23, 1995 and the delegation of Anthony Laskowsky, requesting that his client Klaus Kroeger, be exempted from the Development Charge By -law 92 -105, for his property located at 2916 Highway No. 2, be received; THAT the correspondence be referred to the Director of Planning and Development for a report to be submitted to the General Purpose and Administration Committee updating Council on the development charge regulation; and THAT Anthony Laskowsky be advised of Council's decision." 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 vacant existing lots of record. 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 would be required prior to its issuance. 2.3 Section 7 within the Development Charge By -law recognizes that where a residential building or structure existed within the time period of 24 months prior to the payment of the relevant development charge, (that is at the time the building permit is to be issued) , a credit for the pre- existing unit (s) should be given. The twenty four (24) month period would also have included the two year period immediately prior to the Development Charge By -law's passage on March 22, 1992. Therefore, the By -law allows for exemption of payment provided the dwelling was demolished after March 22, 1990. 14 REPORT NO.: PD -23 -95 PAGE 3 2.4 It is staff's understanding the dwelling unit was removed from Mr. Kroeger's property in 1985, and therefore would not qualify for exemption. 3. STAFF COMMENTS 3.1 Prior to Council's approval of Development Charge 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 within 24 months of the enactment of the Development Charge By -law was to provide a reasonable timeframe for those property owners who intend to rebuild. 3.2 Staff, in viewing the Development Charge By -law of all the local municipalities within Durham Region, would confirm that they also contain a similar provision providing an exemption from payment of a development charge where a dwelling unit was demolished within the period of 24 to 36 months prior to the date their respective by -laws were passed. 3.3 Despite Mr. Laskowsky's submission that there was a dwelling on this property until 1985, 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 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. 3.4 Any exemption to Mr. Laskowsky's request would potentially open up a flood gate for similar requests. Currently, there -are some 500 vacant existing lots in the Municipality. Some of these lots may at one time have supported dwellings. REPORT NO.: PD -24 -95 PAGE 4 Undoubtedly, there is substantial ramification to the Municipality both financially and administratively. 3.5 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 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). 3.6 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 an appeal. The associated costs of providing the public notifications throughout the process excluding staff time, is approximately one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars which has to be borne by the Municipality. 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 In light of the above noted comments, Staff respectfully recommends that the request submitted by Mr. Laskowsky on behalf of his client, Mr. Klaus Kroeger, for an exemption to the Development Charge By -law 92 -105, be denied. REPORT NO.: PD -23 -95 PAGE 5 Respectfully submitted, Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of Planning and Development LT *FW *df 24 February 1995 Reviewed by, - W.H. Stockwell Chief Administrative Officer Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Mr. A.E. Laskowsky Barrister, Solicitor, Notary 73 Centre Street South Oshawa, Ontario. L1H 4A1 1 SUBJECT SITE LANDS ' ' LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 3 L CONCESSION ST. E. I I � I I I � I � I °a 0 0 to EP I m z 0 I V 0 N0 2 cn w a m Z Q. Z O I 0 I m a Q I U � (UNOPENED) ROAD ALLOWANCE KEY MAP - • 200 ••• — J •• • 1 pop- �-1