HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-203-92 REPORT #2
1 HE CORPORATION OF THF TOWN OV NEWCASTLE
DN: DEV.COU REPORT
Y P
Meeting Council File 9
Date Monday, September 28, 1992 Res #
Report PD-2039 File
2 PLN 20. 1 By-Law It
#
Subject DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW COMPLAINT MADE UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT BY 671461 ONTARIO LIMITED
REGISTERED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1668
REHDER AND EDSALL STREETS, BOWMANVILLE
Recommendations-
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-203-92 be adopted as Council's decision in
respect of the complaint of 671461 Ontario Limited under
Section 8 of the Development Charges Act;
2 . THAT Council's decision is to grant the complainant a one-
residential unit credit in the amount of $5386. 00 in respect
of the development charge for land in Plan of Subdivision 40M-
1668, and in all other respects to dismiss the complaint; and
3 . THAT the complainant be advised of Council's decision as
provided by the Development Charges Act.
1. BACKGROUND
1. 1 Council at their July 13, 1992 meeting endorsed the following
resolution:
"THAT the correspondence dated July 2 , 1992 from Sam Gust,
President 671461 Ontario Limited regarding development
charges, Rehder/Edsall, be received;
THAT the correspondence be referred to the Chief
Administrative Officer, the Director of Planning and
Development and the Solicitor for review and preparation of
a report to be submitted to the General Purpose and
Administrative Committee; and
THAT Sam Gust be advised of Council's decision. "
1.2 Within Mr. Gust's letter of July 2, 1992, a closing comment
requested that his letter serve as an official notice of a
complaint filed pursuant to Section 8 of the Development
Charges Act. . . . . 2
REPORT NO. PD-203-92 PAGE 2
2 . APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT
2 . 1 The Development Charges Act provides a mechanism for an owner
to complain, in writing, to the Council of a Municipality in
respect of the Development Charge imposed by the Municipality
on the Owners 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 being
credited under Section 14 is incorrect; or
4) There was an error in the application of the Development
Charge By-law.
2 . 3 Furthermore, the Act requires that Council shall give the
complainant the opportunity to make representation to Council.
Notice of the Hearing shall be mailed to the complainant by
the Clerk not less than fourteen days before the date the
complaint is to be considered by Council. Staff would confirm
that Notice was provided to the complainant by registered
mail, September 10th. , 1992 .
2 .4 Section 13 (1) requires a municipality that permits the
provision of services in lieu of the payment of all or a
portion of a development charge to give a credit for an amount
equal to the reasonable cost of the services. Section 13 (2)
deals with the situation where a municipality and an owner
make an agreement that permits the owner to provide services
additional to or of a greater size or capacity than is
required under a Development Charge By-law. In such a
situation, Section 13 (2) authorizes (but does not require) the
municipality to give a credit for an amount up to the
. . . . 3
REPORT NO. PD-203-92 PAGE 3
reasonable cost to the owner of providing the services. In
either case, the owner may object to the determination of what
is the reasonable cost of the services in question and make
a complaint to the municipal council under Section 8 .
However, in the circumstances of the present complaint,
Section 13 (1) does not apply in respect of the services in
fact provided by the complainant and Section 13 (2) does not
apply in respect of the services provided by the complainant
pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement with the Town. Section
13 (1) and (2) do not need to be considered further by Council.
2.5 Section 14 (1) requires a municipality to give a credit to an
owner for payments made of all or a portion of a charge
related to development of land pursuant to a Subdivision
Agreement or an agreement made as a condition of the granting
of a consent to sever land under the Planning Act. The
complainant is to be given credit for the development levies
paid under the Subdivision Agreement in calculating the amount
of the development charge remaining to be paid by the
complainant under the Development Charge By-law. Because of
Section 14 (4) which is discussed in paragraph 2 .7 of this
report, Section 14 (1) is not applicable.
2. 6 Under Section 14 (2) , if the owner or a former owner has,
before the coming into force of a Development Charge By-law,
provided services in lieu of the payment of all or a portion
of a charge related to development pursuant to a Subdivision
Agreement or an agreement made as a condition of granting of
a consent to sever land under the Planning Act, the
municipality is to give the owner a credit for an amount equal
to the reasonable cost to the owner or a former owner of
providing the services. As Staff understand it, the
complainant has suggested that external services have been
provided by it pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement for which
. . . .4
REPORT NO. PD-203-92 PAGE 4
the complainant should be entitled to a credit under Section
14 (2) of the Development Charge Act. Again, Section 14 (2) is
of no assistance to the complainant because of the
qualification stated in Section 14 (4) .
2 .7 Sections 14 (4) of the Development Charge Act states if a
conflict exists between the provisions of a Development Charge
By-law and an Agreement referred to in Subsections 14(1) or
(2) , the provisions of the Agreement prevail to the extent of
the conflict. The applicable provision of the subdivision
agreement is reproduced in paragraph 3 . 6 of this report.
3 . STAFF COMMENTS
3 . 1 Mr. Sam Gust, on behalf of 671461 Ontario Limited, has on
three (3) occasions (April 13, 1992, May 28, 1992 and July 2 ,
1992) submitted written comments to the Town on the
Development Charges By-law passed by Council March 23, 1992.
It is within the content of the last correspondence dated July
2, 1992 , that Council was advised that 671461 Ontario Limited
wished to formally file a complaint under the Development
Charges Act. Copies of each are attached for Councils
information along with the responses provided by Staff on May
5, 1992 and June 26, 1992. There are several issues raised
by the complainants which Staff will address in this Report.
However, the real essence of the complaint is that the unbuilt
vacant lots in the subdivision should not be subject to the
current development charges of $5386. 00 per lot. It is noted
that the subdivision has a total of 17 lots of which thirteen
(13) lots were vacant at the time the development charges by-
law was passed and are subject to the current levy as per the
terms and conditions of the executed subdivision agreement.
If the complainant's wish is granted, it will cost the Town
$33 ,768. 00 being the difference between the old rate and
current rate for 13 lots.
. . . . 5
REPORT NO. PD-203-92 PAGE 5
3 . 2 Pursuant to Council's resolution of July 13 , 1992, Staff met
with representatives of 671461 Ontario Limited to discuss the
complaint filed.
3 . 3 The complainant indicated that it was their understanding that
resulting from the public meeting process leading to the
passing of the Development Charges By-law; that additional
levies would not be required to be paid if the monies were
submitted prior to the passage of the Development Charge By-
law and in fact the complainant has made such payment to the
Town prior to passage of the By-law. Staff have no comment
with respect to what the complainant understood at the time
of the public meeting. The fact remains that the Policy
Report on the Development Charges as approved by Council
clearly does not provide any exemption for payment of higher
levies for those subdivision agreements executed between March
1991 and passage of the Development Charge By-law in March ,
1992 . Moreover, the Subdivision Agreement which was entered
into between the Town and 671461 Ontario Limited prior to the
passage of the Development Charge By-law stipulated that any
increase in the Development Charge would be applicable for
lots where building permits have not been issued, once the
Development Charge By-law had been passed.
3 .4 A second concern raised by the complainant was that the
Development Charge By-law did not contain any reference to an
exemption for existing dwellings prior to development by
subdivision. Apparently there was an existing dwelling that
was demolished to make way for the subdivision development and
the complainant feels that exemption for one lot should be
given. Staff noted that the Development Charges By-law is
silent with respect to this type of exemption. However, the
Policy Report that was approved by Council allows for such
exemption and Staff is of the opinion that development charge
exemption for one (1) lot should be given. . . . . 6
REPORT NO. PD-203-92 PAGE 6
3 . 5 Correspondence from the applicant contained in Attachment 1
had indicated concern that external servicing contributions
for a sidewalk, oversized storm sewers and park development
was paid to the Town in addition to being required to pay the
increased development charge under the Development Charge By-
law. The complainant suggests a "double charge" for the
externals resulted. As Council may recall, the basis of the
development charge was determined based on the estimated cost
of the residential growth related capital services and park
development costs forecasted to be required within the next
ten years. The external services and park development costs
provided by the complainant were not factored into the
calculation. If these external and oversized services and
park development costs were included in the 10 year forecast
of capital services for the purpose of determining the
development charge, it would be correct to conclude a "double
charging" took place. However, such is not the case.
3 . 6 The development charge is imposed by the Town's Development
Charge By-law. As is noted on Page 3 of Staff's letter to Mr.
Sam Gust dated May 5, 1992, paragraph 3 .4 and Schedule "D" of
the Subdivision Agreement addresses the possibility that
Council might pass a Development Charge By-law. Paragraph 3.4
provides in part:
"Further, it is understood and agreed by the parties,
that the Owner's agreement to pay Development Levies
pursuant to paragraph 3 .4 (1) and Schedule "D" in respect
of the development of the Lands or any part thereof is
not intended by the Parties and shall not have the effect
of limiting the Owner's obligation to pay only that
portion of the development charge otherwise imposed which
is not in excess of the amount of the Development Levies
on the date of issuance of any building permit under the
Ontario Building Code Act for a dwelling(s) proposed to
be constructed on the Lands that would have been payable
under paragraph 3 .4 (1) and Schedule "D" if the Town has
not passed a Development Charge By-law" .
. . . .7
REPORT NO. PD-203-92 PAGE 7
3 .7 Section 14 (4) of the Development Charge Act is a complete
answer to the complaint insofar as the subdivision agreement
is based on Section 14 (2) . To the extent that it is
inconsistent with the development charge imposed by the
Development Charge By-law, Paragraph 3 .4 of the Subdivision
Agreement prevails. As a result, the complaint has no
foundation insofar as it may be based on Section 14 (2) .
3 . 8 The Complainant also contends that their proposed subdivision
had been submitted seven years ago. Staff would note that
in reviewing the subdivision file, the original application
was received on February 5, 1987. In May of 1989 the
Regional Works Department advised that the servicing proposals
could now be forwarded to their attention for review and
approval. The servicing proposals were required due to the
fact that the subject lands were not previously serviceable.
Draft approval was subsequently issued on April 5, 1990 . The
first submission of a Subdivision Agreement was received by
Staff on June 27, 1990. Revisions were provided to the
applicant's consultant in August, 1990 and a subsequent
submission was not received until March 11, 1991. A
Subdivision agreement for execution was provided by Staff in
June, 1991 and registered June 25, 1991. By then, the Town
solicitor was involved in assisting Town Staff in the review
and preparation of new subdivision agreement in light of the
Development Charge Act. March 1991 was adopted as the cut off
date whereby agreements executed prior to March 1991 were
given certain exemption for payment of the higher development
charge. The Subdivision Agreement in question was executed
in June 1991 and therefore the conditional exemption is not
available to the complainant.
3 . 9 If the complainant's argument is that the exemption from the
development charge should be widened to include Subdivision
. . . .8
REPORT NO. PD-203-92 PAGE 8
Agreements executed after March 1991, Staff cannot support
such a change because of the major negative financial impact
on the Town and the basis on which Council entered into these
Subdivision Agreements. If the complainant's argument is that
an exemption should be granted in respect of any lot for which
development levies were paid prior to the passing of the
Development Charge By-law, Staff note that the Subdivision
Agreement executed by the complainant addresses this issue
contrary to the position of the complainant. There is no
reason why Council should now make a decision that is not
consistent with the Subdivision Agreement executed by the
complainant. Neither argument has merit. Both should be
rejected by Council.
4 . POST HEARING OF COMPLAINT
4 . 1 After hearing the evidence and submissions of the complainant,
Council may:
a) confirm the development charge; or
b) amend the development charge to the extent that in the
opinion of the Council, a review of any or all matters
in Paragraph 2.2 of this report justifies such an
amendment.
4.2 The clerk shall no later than fifteen days after the day of
the decision by Council, give written notice of the decision
to the complainant. The notice shall specify the last date
for filing an appeal, which date shall be no earlier than
twenty days after the date the letter was mailed.
4. 3 The complainant may appeal the decision of Council to the
Ontario Municipal Board by filing with the Clerk a Notice of
Appeal setting out the reasons for the appeal. The Municipal
Board shall hold a hearing except where it is of the opinion
that the complaint is insufficient. The Municipal Board may
make any decision that could have been made by the Council.
. . . .9
REPORT NO. PD-203-92 PAGE 9
5. CONCLUSION
5. 1 In conclusion, this subdivision and other owners who have an
executed Subdivision Agreement with the Town since March 1991
have been dealt with by Staff both fairly and consistently.
Apart from providing exemption for one lot from the
development charge, Staff cannot agree with the complainant
on the other issues he raised.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
r � �
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P. Lawrence otseff
Director of Planning Chief Administrative
and Development Officer
r`
LDT*FW*cc
*Attach
23 September 1992
ATTACHMENT No 1
APRIL t3, 1992
TO THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
SUBJECT; DEVELOPMENT CHARGES RHEDER/EDSALL
Presented by Sam Gust
We have received notice that ADDITIONAL LOT LEVIES are
required on the lots in our subdivision for which permits were
taken out .
- _ We believe that under the circumstances our development should
qualify for an exemption under the development charge policy.
HISTORY:
THE APPL I i_AT I ON FOR DRAFT PLAN AP'P'ROVAL_ WAS SUBMITTED 7 YEPPS AGO.
THIS WAS A PROJECT OF 17 LOTS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHICH SHOULD
HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY EASILY PROCESSED. NUMEROUS PROBLEMS
DEVELOPED.
F I RSl , I T TOO[ THE TOWN A YEAR TO ESTABLISH A ROAD ALLOWANCE POLICY
THAT DELAYED OUR A1=PLICATION. .
SEWER BAC[ UP PROBLEM -- AFTER ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO OF REVIEW IT WAS
AGREED THAT THE PROJECT COULD PROCEED CF WE CORRECTED AN EX [ST I Nip
PROBLEM ON QUEEN/ ONTARIO ST. WE CONTRIBUTED $13, C)00 TOWARD THE
RESOLUTION OF THIS EXISTING PROBLEM.
THE TOWN WANTED A PAPI /PLAYGROUND IN THE RAVINE AFTER
CONSIDERABLE ARCHITECTURAL EXPENSE TO US AND MORE TIME IT WAS
DECIDED THAT A PAR[ ETTE IN THE RAVINE WAS I MI-PAC T I C AL_.
WE AGREED TO GIVE THE TOWN 5% CASH IN LIEU OF PAR[ LAND
PLUS APPROXIMATELY G ACRES OF VALLEY LAND PLUS $20, 000 TOWARDS
PLAYGROUND ECRU I PMENT.
WE HAVE ALSO CONTRIBUTED $1 0, 0t„0 FOR FUTURE S I DEWAL[ S OUTSIDE THE
SUBDIVISION.
WE ALSO P�t L D FOR THE OVERS (Z 1 NG OF THE SEWER I'f PES TO ACCOMMODATE
OTHER DEVEL_OrMENTS TO THE NORTH WITH NO CHANCE OF FUTURE RECOVERY
OP OM 1 .- i , ,., V,-- .-L..I.J' f..i w ti, Iv Y U,.-u Vvw... 7-E ..nF, T .1. 1 1 • - _
WE WENT TO ADDITIONAL_ EXFENSE TO ENSURE THAT NO PROBLEMS WERE
CREATED FOR THE NEIGHBOURS OR TOWN DURING INSTALLATION OF ROADS ANT)
SERVICES.
AFTER YEARS OF DELAY WE FINALLY SUBM I T`f Ei)
TOWN AND BELIEVED WE HAD SA F C SF I ED ALL ( 'L I ' I F'C=t-1(=r '
ATTACHMENT No 1
HOWEVER, WE WERE TOLD OUR AGREEMENT WOULD BE HELD UP DUE TO THE NEW
POLICY WHICH THE TOWN WAS WOKING ON. A NEW FORM OF AGREEMENT WAS
NOW NEEDED. THIS CREATED MOPE DELAYS.
WE ARRANGED FOE' LETTERS OF CREDIT WITH THE BANr. THE TOWN RETURNED
THESE. THEY NOW WANTED A NEW FORMAT . THIS CREATED MORE DELAYS.
RELUCTANTLY, WE SIGNED THE NEW AGPEEMENT , SINCE THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT ADVISED US THAT IF WE DIDN' T THERE WOULD BE FUPTHEP
DELAYS.
AT ALL TIMES WE WERE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND WERE EXPECTING THE
SAME.
IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY INCREASE IN LEVIES WOULD BE BASED
ON LEVIES DUE AS OF THE DATE OF THE PASSING OF THE BYLAW.
WE PAID 100% OF LEVIES PP I OR TO THE PASSING OF THE BYLAW.
THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BYLAW STATES THAT THE INCREASED LEVIES ARE
FOP THE PURPOSE OF OFFSETTING INCREASED SERVICES R'EOU1PED AS A
\ RESULT OF A DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE ACCOMPANYING
STATEMENT WE HAVE PAID MUCH MORE THAN PEOU1RED.
ALSO UNDER THE NEW POLICY IT STATES THAT WE SHOULD BE ENrITLED TO
A CREDIT FOR ONE LOT FOR THE PREVIOUS HOUSE THAT WAS ON THE
PROPERTY AND HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED WITHIN 24 MONTHS PPlOP TO
DEVELOPMENT. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS TOLD US THAT WE ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO THIS CREDIT BECAUSE OUR DEVELOPMENT PREDATED THE NEW
BYLAW AND YET THEY WISH TO INCLUDE US UNDER THE NEW BYLAW FOR
INCREASED LEVIES.
IN SUMMARY:
1 . OUR APPLICATION HAD BEEN IN THE SYSTEM FOP SEVEN YEARS.
2. WE HAVE ALREADY PAID THIS TOWN FOP WORI• S FAR BEYOND 111 Irll" I5
NORMALLY EXPECTED OF A DEVELOPER.
3. WE HAD PAID 100% OF THE LOT LEVIES 1='1=I OP TO THE PASSING OF DIE
BYLAW. THERE WERE NO LOT LEVIES DUE.
4. WE HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM RECEIVING SOY BENEFITS FROM rHE NEW
BYLAW WHILE RETPOAL T I VELY 1• E I NG C H46ED INCREASED LF V I E5.
WE HAVE CONTACTED OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND IT APPEARS rHAT rl II—"Y
WILL NOT CHARGE ADDITIONAL LEVIES WHERE LEVIES HAD BEEN I n , •
SPECIFIC DATE.
WE DO NOT WISH TO OBJECT —10 THC NEW
HOWEVER WE DO ASF THAT l T CF f 11I 'I_F mFN !";_l"• I ' ; ,!o ,
-
' R�m^�
. ATTACHMENT "�~~ "
\
'
CASH EXPENPITUPES
TOWN LOT LEVIES: $ 50, 558.
OTHE9 CONTRIBUTIONS:
SEWEP IMPPOVEMENTS 13, 000.
PAFf DEDICATION 22, 500.
PAR[ EQUIPMENT 20, 000.
SIDEWAL} CONTRIBUTION 10, 000.
OVEPSlZE PIPE 8, 000.
A A[PEG VALLEY LAND 20, 000.
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 93, 500.
TOTAL TO TOWN $ 144, 058.
========
REGIONAL LOT LEVIES $ 114, 903
=======
\
�
\
ATTACHMENT No 1
e"iU�astCe
ONTARIO
s
5 may, 1992 — —
Mr. Sam Gust
138 Queen Street
Bowmanville; Ontario
L1C 1M9
Dear Mr. Gust:
Re: DEVELOPMENT CHARGES - RHEDER/EDSALL SUBDIVISION
At its meeting of April 13, 1992, the Town Council resolved that
your delegation with respect to development charges be acknowledged
and referred to myself and the Town's solicitor for the preparation
of a response. We have examined your written submissions dated
April 13, 1992 and respond as follows to them. -
The Rheder/Edsall subdivision is being developed by the company of
which you are president, 671461 Ontario Limited (the "numbered
company") . Following the making of the agreement made as of July
10, 1991 between the numbered company and the Town (the
"Subdivision Agreement") and its registration on title as
Instrument No. NL33838, a final plan of subdivision was registered
as Plan 40M-1668. I note that the Subdivision Agreement was
executed by you and other signing officers of the numbered company
on the company's behalf. A copy of the Subdivision Agreement as
executed and registered has been provided to the numbered company.
The numbered company itself caused'Plan 40M-1668 to be registered.
Copies of both -the Subdivision Agreement and the Plan should be
available to -you through the numbered company.
,1 The making of the Subdivision Agreement was, a condition of ,approval
of the draft plan of subdivision of the lands, Plan 18T-87005'. The
final plan of subdivision was not approved by the Regional
Municipality of Durham until the Town notified the Region that the
Subdivision Agreement had been executed and that the other Town
L;unditi.ons or approvals had been sa-:xstied. As you know, this is
standard procedure in plans of subdivisions.
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
40 TEMPERANCE STREET • BOWMANVILLE • ONTARIO • LiC 3A6 • (416) 623.3379 • FAX 623 4169 NECYUEON EII
ATTACHMENT No 1
Mr. Sam Gust -2-
1
In your submissions to Council of April 13 , 1992 , you argued that
under the circumstances described in your submissions, the numbered
cowpany's subdivision should qualify for an exemption under the
Town's development charge policy. I wish to advise that the
exemption policy was available only in cases in which the
Subdivision Agreement had been executed by all parties prior to
March, 1991.
You also stated in your submissions that you had paid 11100 % of
levies prior to the passing of the by-law". The Town's records
show that in fact levies were paid in respect of seven out of a
total of seventeen lots shown on P1an,40M-1668 prior to the passing
of the development charge by-law (By-Law 92-105) on March 23, 1992 .
Paragraph 3 .4 and Schedule "D" of the Subdivision Agreement deal
with lot levies. It should be noted that paragraph 3.4 (2) of the
executed Subdivision Agreement addresses the subject of the future
passing of a development charge by-law provides as follows:
(2) The Parties acknowledge and' agree the provisions of this
paragraph 3 .4 and Schedule "D" are not intended and shall not
be considered to have the effect of exempting the Owner in
whole or in part from, or making inapplicable to the Owner,
or making inapplicable in respect of the development of the
Lands, a development charge that after the date of this
Agreement may be imposed by the Town by passing a By-law (the
"Development Charge By-law") under the Development Charges
Act, 1989 (the "Act") , and shall not be used as a
justification for or the basis of granting the Owner a credit
of any amount in determining the development charge payable
by the Owner under such By-law and Act. Further, it is
understood and agreed by the parties, that the Owner's
agreement to pay Development Levies pursuant to paragraph
3 .4 (1) and Schedule I'D" in respect of the development -of the
Lands or any part thereof is not intended by the Parties and
shall not have the effect of limiting the Owner's obligation
to pay only that portion of the development charge otherwise
imposed which is not in excess of the amount of the
Development Levies on the date of issuance of any building
permit under the Ontario Building Code Act for a dwelling(s)
proposed to be constructed on the Lands that would have been
payable under paragraph 3 . 4 (l) and Schedule "n" if the !Town
had not passed a Development Charge By-law.
ATTACHMENT No 1
Mr. Sam Gust -3-
In light of the numbered company's express acknowledgements and
agreements contained in the Subdivision Agreement which you signed
as president of the company and on which the Town relied in
executing the Subdivision Agreement and in recommending that the
Region approve the final plan of subdivision, I cannot recommend
that Council now exempt the numbered company from the requirement
to pay the development charge provided in the development charge
by-law.
Yours truly, S
Franklin Wu,
cc: Mayor d. Hamre and Members of Council '
Mr. L. Kotseff
Mr. D. Hefferon
ATTACHMENT No2
k
671461 Ontario Ltd. ��� 1992
182 Wellington St.
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 1W3 f 70WX 0� KE'HU,5TLE
Telephone - 416-623-4622 ^ E PLANNING Of f'Ah1;4kIVT
Fax - 416-623-4218
May 28, 1992
Town of Newcastle DELIVER BY HAND
40 Temperance St.
Bowmanville, Ontario
Attention: Mr. Larry Taylor
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Re: Development Charge By-Law
Further to our discussions could you please confirm that
existing lots for which levies had been paid prior to the passing
of the new bylaw are exempt from additional charges pursuant to
the Development Charge Bylaw.
Could you also direct me to that section of the bylaw which
exempts these existing lots for future reference.
Yours truly,
Sam Gust
ATTACHMENT No2
TW�W�I(e
ONTARIO
a
26 June 1992
671461 Ontario Ltd.
182 Wellington Street
Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1 C 1W3
Attention: Mr. S. Gust
Dear Mr. Gust:
Re: Town of Newcastle Development Charge By-law
By-law No. 92-105
1 acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 28, 1992.
With the exception of (1) specific dwellings on the identified lots shown on the
registered plans of subdivision referred to in subsection 9(2) of By-law No. 92-105, (2)
the enlargement of existing dwellings which are exempted from the development charge
by subsection 9(1) of the By-law, and (3) situations where development levies have
been paid in satisfaction of a condition of a Land Division Committee consent decision
in the circumstances which are referred to below in this letter, the development charge
imposed by By-law No. 92-105 is payable on the occasions referred to in subsection
2(1) of the by-law. These occasions include the issuance of a permit under the Building
Code Act in relation to a building or structure.
Subject to the foregoing, neither the Development Charges Act or By-law No. 92-105
differentiate between cases in which the land on which the dwelling is proposed to be
constructed is or is not within a registered plan of subdivision, or is or is not a parcel
which has been severed from a larger parcel with the consent of the Land Division
Committee.
Where the land on which a dwelling is proposed to be erected comprises a lot shown
on a registered plan of subdivision, I am advised by the Town's solicitor that under
subsection 14(1) of the Development Charges Act, the owner who applies for a building
permit and is required to pay the development charge is to be credited with the amount
that has been oaid_in respect of the dwelling as a ciPvelonmPnt lew n,rnviripri fir in
subdivision agreement with the Town which was made as a condition of approval of a
draft plan of subdivision prior to November 23, 1991. The Town's usual subdivision
agreement provided for adjustments to be made to the amount of the development
levies that are payable. As a result, where building permits are issued on or after
March 23, 1992 when By-law nO. 91-105 was enacted, in the case under discussion,
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
40 TEMPERANCE STREET - BOWMANVILLE • ONTARIO • LTC 3A6 • (4 16) 623 3379 • FAX 623 4169 nECVCLEOPMEn
ATTACHMENT NO2
2 -
the owner's liability is not limited to pay only the amount of the development specified
in the subdivision agreement. Rather, the owner is liable to pay the development
charge imposed by By-law No. 92-105 reduced by the amount of credit available under
subsection 14(1) of the Act.
If a building is proposed to be constructed on a parcel of land which has been divided
and separated as to ownership from a larger unit of land pursuant to a Land Division
Committee decision consenting to the severance, under the Planning Act, ordinarily a
condition of the decision imposed by the Committee that would have to be satisfied
before the transfer would be stamped by the Committee as having been consented to
would be that the owner pay to the Town development levy provided by the Town's
development levy schedule. Until the required amount was paid, the condition to the
consent would not be satisfied and the transfer would not be stamped by the
Committee and could not be registered on title.
In those cases in which a building permit was or is applied for on or after March 23,
1992 (when By-law No. 92-105 was passed), for a parcel created by a transfer stamped
with the Land Division Committee's consent and the owner has paid the development
levy in satisfaction of the Committee's condition, the owner will not be required to pay
the difference between the development levy already paid and the development charge
imposed by By-law No. 92-105. In this regard, subsection 45(2) of the Development
Charges Act provides the owner with what amounts to an exemption from such liability.
It reads:
An agreement with respect to charges related to development
made under section 51 or 53 of the Planning Act that is in
effect on the earlier of the dates referred to in clauses
(1)(a) and (b) remains in effect.
In the case of the Town of Newcastle the date referred to in subsection 45(2) is
November 23, 1991.
As requested by you, I enclose herewith copies of subsections 2(1) and 9(2) of By-
law No. 92-105.
Yours truly,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning & Development
JUL 2 1992
Jul- 9 1992 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
MAYOR'S OFFICE
T9 K , �.J�" C 4`.'6.ty 671461 ONTARIO LIMITED
PLANNING OLPAMRTNIFNT 182 Wellington St. ,
Bowmanville, Ontario ATTACHMENT NO3
1rJ. C -1
623-4622
July 2, 1992
Town of Newcastle DELIVER BY HAND
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Attention: -Mayor & Members of Council
Dear Sirs:
RE: Development Charges Rheder/Edsall
Since our appearance before Council on April 13, 1992 wherein we
presented our complaint regarding the additional levies being
imposed by the municipality for the lots on the above
subdivision, we have received correspondence from the planning
department which is not very clear. We are attaching copies of
same for your information.
It was our understanding based upon comments made at the public
hearing prior to passing of the bylaw, that additional levies
would not be applicable to lots of record for which levies were
paid under the old bylaw. We relied on this information and
accordingly paid all the levies in full on March 11 , 1992 . In
his letter dated May 5, 1992 Mr. Wu states that this was not
true. We have checked with the Town and they did in fact receive
the cheque which was hand delivered on March 12, 1992 but did
not deposit it until April 1 , 1992.
Having reviewed the bylaw as passed by the Town it is unclear as
to whether existing lots prior to the passing of*the bylaw are
exempted from additional levies. According to bylaw 92-105 there
is no exemption for existing lots. We called the planning
department and they indicated that they would have to check with
the Town' s solicitors. We received the reply dated June 26, 1992.
As you are aware, we have filed a notice of appeal with respect
to bylaw' 92-105 . In his letter dated May 5 , 1992 , Mr. Wu makes
reference to our subdivision agreement wherein we agreed to the
tiiz"t er i fig Iii any way -Gl-a -1 ow" Gounci 1. in the
exercise of its discretion to pass " a development charge by-law
under the Development Charges Act. It is not the passing of the
bylaw which we are objecting to, but the application of the bylaw
as it relates to our subdivision. We believe that these lots 1
should be exempt under subsection 45(2) of the Development
Charges Act. This section does not appear to be incorporated in
the Town' s bylaw. ,
ATTACHMENT No3 +
It may be that an appeal to the OMB is not necessarily required
at this stage. According to Section 8 of the Development Charges
Act, "An owner may complain in writing to the council of a
municipality in respect of the development cnarge imposed by the
municipality on the owner' s development that, (d) there was an
error in the application of the development charge by-law" .
Further Section 8(4) states that "the council shall give the
complainant the opportunity to make representation and notice of
the hearing shall be mailed to the complainant by the clerk not
less than 14 days before the complaint is to be considered. "
We ask that this letter serve as a notice of such complaint to
council.
By
C11 To
Yours tru ,
S. Gus Pr ident �_._._._ _
4
l r • 1 j i