Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-052-02 " ;Ij.~ j-""" ," ".t ~ CJ Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Report #: PSD-052-02 File #: ff()7 PLN 20.4.6 CIIl-PJI1-02 Date: Monday, June 3, 2002 By-law #: Subject: DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW COMPLAINT OWNER: MR. PAUL CHRISTENSEN RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-052-02 be received for information. 2. THAT the development charge applied to the property located within Part Lot 15, Concession 7, former Township of Clarke, known municipally as 7700 Carscadden Road was a correct application of the Municipality's Development Charge By-law No. 2000-108 and that Mr. Christensen's request for refund be DENIED; and 3. THAT Mr. Christensen be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Davi . Crome, MCIP, R.P.P. Director of Planning Services ."" /--'! ,. () () fl......... Reviewed by: U ~ ~ v...J VL Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer L PDJC*sh May 16, 2002 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 625 . ..' REPORT NO.:PSD-052.o2 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Mr. Paul Christensen, by correspondence dated December 10th, 2001, filed a complaint pursuant to the appropriate section of the Development Charges Act, 1977 that an error in the application of the Municipality's development charges by-law was applied against his property. 1.2 The Clerk's Department advised Mr. Christensen that Council considered his correspondence on January 145h, 2002. At that time a motion was passed referring his letter to the Director of Planning Services. 1.3 Under Section 8 of the Development charges Act, the Owner has ninety (90) days from the date that the building permit is issued to submit a complaint. Upon receipt of a complaint, and before Council makes a decision on the request, Council must give the complainant the opportunity to make representation to Council. 1.4 Pursuant to the requirements of the Development Charges Act a hearing was held on February 25th, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Mr. Christensen, in addressing Council requested that his property be exempted from the Development Charges fee. Mr. Christensen was of the opinion that as only agricultural buildings remained on site, development charges cannot be applied to properties that have two or less buildings on site. The house that was located on the property was removed in 1989. The footings remain on site. It was Mr. Christensen's understanding that Ontario Municipal Board rulings do not cover farm property. In his letter of appeal, Mr. Christensen noted that the Ontario Municipal Board had already ruled that imposing of development chares in similar cases was outside the intent of the Development Charges Act, 1997. Mr. Christensen also questioned if all vacant land are levied a garbage removal fee, as he has been charged garbage removal for a property that has no residential building on it. 626 -0 REPORT NO.: PSD-052-02.doc PAGE 3 Furthermore, in as much as the Municipality installed a green address sign on the property, Mr. Christensen expressed the opinion that the Municipality considered this to be a dwelling lot. 1.5 Council, in light of Mr. Christensen's presentation endorsed the following resolution: "THAT the delegation of Paul Christensen be referred to staff for preparation of a report: 2.0 MUNICIPALITY'S DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW 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 2000-108. 2.2 Within the Development Charges By-law, Section 3 entitled - "Lands Affect by By-law", states this by-law applies to all lands within the geographic area of the Municipality. This would include 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 The by-law does contain an exemption to this principle. Where a dwelling has been demolished, a twenty-four (24) month grace period from the time of demolition to the receipt of the building permit was provided within which a development charge would not be required. 3.0 STAFF COMMENTS 3.1 Mr. Christensen did not qualify for the exemption under the 24 month grace period. The original dwelling was removed in 1989 while the building permit for the current dwelling was issued September 17111, 2001. In this regard, the Development Charges By-law is clear and there was no error made by staff in the application of the development Charges. 627 "', " . .. REPORT NO.: PSD-052.o2.doc PAGE 4 3.2.1 Mr. Christensen in his presentation to Council noted that the Ontario Municipal Board has previously ruled that imposing development charges in similar cases was outside the intent of the Development Charges Act. In light of these comments, by correspondence dated March 8th, staff requested Mr. Christensen's assistance in obtaining the decision and/or ruling that the Ontario Municipal Board may have issued. To date staff has not received any confirmation from Mr. Christensen. Staff and the Municipality's solicitor are not aware of any such decision. 3.3 Mr. Christensen, in support of his position also noted that garbage charges on the tax bill have been paid for this property and the Municipality has installed the green municipal address sign on the property. The Finance Department advised Mr. Christensen should not have been billed the garbage charge on his taxes for a vacant property. The Finance Department indicated if Mr. Christensen submits a request in writing, he would be entitled to a rebate for the last three year payments. The Municipality's Engineering Services Department has confirmed that the green municipal address sign should not have been installed prior to the construction of a dwelling unit on the property. However, with the issuance of a building permit September 17th, 2001, the necessity of the sign remains. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 Neither the payment of the garbage charges or the installation of the green municipal address sign has an impact on the enforcement and implementation of the policies contained within the Municipality's Development Charges By-law. 4.2 In light of the above comments respecting the Municipality's Development Charges By- law staff respectfully recommends that the complaint filed by Mr. Christensen be denied. 628 .. , . REPORT NO.: PSD-052.o2.doc PAGE 5 4.3 The Municipality's Solicitor has reviewed, and concurs with, the recommendations of this report. Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Mr. Paul Christensen 7700 Carscadden Road Orono, Ontario LOB 1 MO 629