Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-20-89 DN: 16. 5 (f) TOWN OF NEWCASTLE ��J'71f� •yam{,', REPORT File # Res. # , ` -- �� By-Law # NEETTING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, January 23, 1989 REPORT #: PD-20-89 FILE #: LD 147/88 SUBJECT: MRS. BRAGG - REQUEST FOR REFUND OF LOT LEVY LAND DIVISION APPLICATION - LD 147/88 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-20-89 be received; and 2. THAT Mrs. Bragg be advised that the Town of Newcastle is not prepared to refund any portion of the Lot Levy related to Application LD 147/88 and that regrets any inconvenience that this may have caused. 1. ORIGIN: 1.1 At its meeting held on January 9, 1989, the General Purpose and Administration Committee directed Staff to investigate the matter of levy refund requested by Mrs. Bragg and to report back to Committee. 2. BACKGROUND: 2.1 The Director of Planning and Development and Manager of Development Review Branch subsequently met with Mrs. Bragg to ascertain the circumstances which lead to her request for levy refund and the following information was gathered. . . .2 d� REPORT 0D. : PD-20-89 PAGE 2 _______________________________________________________________________________ 2.2 On March 14, 1988, the Durham Imud Division Committee approved her 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 detailed requirements of the Town were provided to the Docbnm Laud Division Committee prior to its approval of the application and Mrs. Bragg was aware of the Tovm`a detailed requirements which, among other matters, required the applicant to "pay to the Town of Newcastle, the appropriate lot development charges". 3.3 Shortly after the Laud Division Committee's approval of her application, Mrs. Bragg telephoned the Department and inquired as to the levy rate and the time she has to fulfill the conditions of approval. As told by Mrs. Bragg, the verbal response from Staff was that the "levy rate is ¢I,860. , and that she has up to one (l) year to fulfill the condition". Mrs. Bragg therefore interpreted that the levy rate of ¢1,860. will be good for one (l) yeacr, although in actual fact, as admitted by Mrs. Bragg, Staff never did indicate to her that the levy rate was locked in for one (l) year. 3.4 Mrs. Bragg stated that she would "pay the $1,860. levy immediately if she was told that levy rate will go up." She was "shocked" that the levy rate has gone og to ¢3,743.00 as of September 24, 1988. She subsequently paid the $2,743.00 under protest because she felt that she has been misinformed and requested the Town to refund the difference. 3. COMMENTS: 3.1 The condition of approval recommended by Town Staff states "the applicant Bay the Town appropriate lot development obocgeo' . The *mcd "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 cemoou that Staff did not specify the amount in our rf�) REPORT 00. : PD-20-89 PAGE 3 _______________________________________________________________________________ conditions of approval. Mrs. 8cmgg'o subsequent enquiry failed to ascertain the meaning of "appropriate" our did Staff elaborate no its meaning. Mrs. Bragg was apparently told that "levy is ¢I,860. and she has one (l) year to fulfill the condition". In my view, there is a case of lack of communication on the pact of both Mrs. Bragg and the Staff. In bind sight, the word "appropriate" should never have been used but instead, the condition should state that levy pnlnneut is subject to increase as approved by Council from time to time. Staff have since reworded our condition. In addition, Staff could perhaps be more thorough in explaining the levy rate at time of enquiry by Mrs. Bragg. 3.2 In reviewing this matter, I mm of the opinion that there is no concrete evidence that Staff have misled Mrs. Bragg. It is my view that Mrs. Bragg made her own interpretation of Staff's answer to her questions and therefore Staff cannot be held responsible. To refund any part of the levy can be construed as admission of error and in my view' there is no error in this instance. In addition, there are approximately forty (40) other land severances that would be treated in the same category as Mrs. Bcagg'o application. Any refund to Mrs. Bragg would set a precedent. Accordingly, no refund should be made to Mrs. Bragg. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee ----------------- Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P. Lawrence Kutaeff Director of Planning & Development Chief Ad i iotrative officer *FW* .ip *Attach. January ll' 1989 CC: Mr. & Mrs. Barry Bragg R.R. #4 BONMAKVILLEv Ontario LIC 3K5