Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-40-84 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL.(416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1984 REPORT NO. : PO-40-84 SUBJECT: Fire Protection Requirements for Rural Development RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following 1 . That Report PD-40-84 be received; and 2. That the Subdivision Agreement in respect of proposed plan of subdivision 18T-82.034 include a further development charge of $555.00 per lot for rural fire protection services ; and 3. That Staff prepare an appropriate amendment to By-law 81-30 to provide for cash contributions towards the purchase of capital equipment for fire fighting as an alternative to the Town 's existing reservoir requirements where deemed appropriate by the Fire Chief; and * 4. That the attached By-law authorizing execution of a Subdivision Agreement between the Town of Newcastle and 542985 Ontario Limited be approved. C`(9 REPORT NO: PH-40-84 Page 2 RACKGROUND AND COMMENT: At the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting of January 16, 1984, Council considered Staff Report Pn-25-84 in respect of the proposed subdivision agreement for Plan of Subdivision 18T-8234. As a result of the Committee' s consideration a number of concerns were identified relative to the appropriatness of the present Town policy in respect of rural fire protection and the alternative suggested by the Consultants acting on behalf of the owners of the subject subdivision application. At that time it was indicated that while there was some merit in providing for cash contributions as opposed to construction of rural reservoirs, Staff had some difficulty in rationalizing a per lot levy to be imposed in lieu of the provision of a reservoir. It was indicated that while this was fairly simple in the case of Hamlet development , it was much more complicated for rural estate development where the number of new lots to be created could not be established with certainty. Following from the Committee 's direction , Staff contacted a number of other municipalities to establish the relevance of our existing policies and also contacted the Town Solicitor with respect to the propiety of a further development levy for rural development. In the case of the former, it was determined that very few municipalities, in fact none of those which we contacted , had similar policies in respect of rural fire protection. However the overriding comment that was provided, was that each municpality had sufficient fire fighting equipment and manpower to adequately service any rural development that may be proposed. With respect to latter, it was suggested . . .3 REPORT NO: PO-40-84 Page 3 by Staff and has been concurred with by the Town solicitor that inasmuch as the existing lot levy was developed taking into consideration other relevant policies and requirements , related to development, that it contained no special levy related to rural fire protection since the Town had an appropriate policy and as such if the Town chose to impose a further levy specifically related to fire protection for rural development that such a levy could be substantiated and justified. Rearing these comments in mind, Staff have completed a preliminary review of By-law 81 -30 and feel that while it provides for deviation from the policy, through execution of subdivision agreements, there is no specific formula for calculating cash contributions in lieu of the provision of a reservoir. Staff feel that an amendment to the By-law would be appropriate but in the meantime feel that the present By-law allows us to deviate from the norm subject to Council approval . In that regard, it was the intent of the By-law to provide a static water supply for fire fighting purposes in a location within close proximity to development. This would then allow the Fire Department to reduce the time required to refill a tank truck if required to do so in the course of fighting a fire. Reservoirs, however are a long term maintenance responsibility to the municipality and although necessary in some locations should be avoided if at all possible. Similarily, reservoirs are of real benefit only to those areas immediately surrounding the reservoir location and are of little or no benefit to the rest of the municipality. Notwithstanding the fact that the rest of the municipality must bear the cost of maintaining this facility. As an alternative to reservoirs, the acquisition . . .4 REPORT NO: Pn-40-84 Page 4 of additional capital equipment and specifically additional tank trucks, would improve the Town 's total fire fighting capability while at the same time meeting the objectives of the present rural fire fighting requirements. As previously indicated, the difficult question is how much of a cash contribution should a developer be responsible for, and secondly, should a rural fire fighting policy be universal in nature. In response to the first, Staff would suggest that much of the need for improved fire fighting capability stems from rural development and thus the onus should be upon the developers to contribute to the provision of the necessary capital equipment. The estimated value of a reservoir has recently been placed at $20,000.00. Bearing in mind that there is a certain benefit to the municipality in not having a reservoir and that there are certain benefits to the entire municipality that would be accured from the acquisition of additional capital fire fighting equipment, we would suggest that an appropriate cash contribution could be established as 750/, of the cost of providing the reservoir. In the case of the subject plan of subdivision, this would work out to a per lot charge of X555.00 in addition to the Town 's standard lot levy. Staff note that while this would provide a solution with respect to the subject application, it would not address the second question of universality, that is the application of a policy to all rural development, including severances. At the present point in time, the rural fire protection requirements are not applied to severances, however if the Town choses to pursue a cash contribution in lieu of the provision of fire reservoirs, it is logical to extend the same rationale to rural severances. It is therefore .. .5 i REPORT NO: PD-40-84 Page 5 appropriate to establish a per lot levy for severances. Based upon the present policy which would require a reservoir for every 75 units created in the rural area and using the estimate of $20,000.00 per reservoir, this can be translated into a $200.00 per lot levy using the same 75/25 rationale as applied in the case of the subject plan of subdivision. If you follow this rational to its logical conclusion, the Town 'sfire protection requirements would then provide for a per lot levy related to Hamlet development, a per lot levy related to estate residential development and a per lot levy related to development occuring by severance. Given Staff's desire to expedite finalization of the subject subdivision agreement, we are therefore recommending that By-law 81 -30 be amended to reflect the foregoing comments and that the required subdivision agreement in respect of Plan 18T-82034 incorporate a per lot charge of $555.00 in lieu of acquiring provision of a static reservoir. Respectful ) s 'tted, �-z-o�� T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning J. Aldridge Fire Chief TTE*JA*bb *Attach. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE BY-LAW NUMBER 84- being a By-law to authorize the entering into of a Subdivision Agreement with the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle and 542985 Ontario Limited. The Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle hereby enacts as follows: 1 . THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle, and seal with the Corporation's seal , a Subdivision Agreement between 542985 Ontario Limited and the said Corporation dated the day of , 1984, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "X". 2. THAT Schedule "X" attached hereto forms part of this by-law. BY-LAW read a first time this day of 1984 BY-LAW read a second time this day of 1984 -- BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 1984 G. B. RICKARD, MAYOR D. W. OAKES, CLERK