On the surface, there is logic in granting a request by local business owner Dan Cotton to remove a portion of the development charges being levied against a structure he is planning to build.
Current development charges for water and sewer are set at $28,000 – for a building that will use neither service.
Cotton was at council on Nov. 5, asking relief from that portion of the development charges for the project – which represent just under a third of the overall fee.
Councillor John Matusinec said that at a previous council meeting, he brought up the issue of a residential building proposed which cannot get sewer access although it will get water access.
At that time, he had asked if council would consider waiving part of the development charges fee for sewers.
“I can’t see anyone paying the sewer fee if they are not going to be part of the system.”
Since then, another proposal has surfaced for a building to be used for storage, within the village of Arthur.
“It has a dirt floor and there will be no water or sewers. But because of its large nature to store RVs and vehicles it is not a factory but it is in an industrial classification.”
Matusinec said the total current development charge proposed for that building is over $70,000 – “It’s just a little impractical for this kind of building.”
He asked council to consider waiving that portion of the development charges for both projects.
Public Works Manager Gary Williamson said “part of the intent according to county planning is that buildings within urban areas are not supposed to be on septic systems or wells – they must be on municipal services – that are available.”
In the first instance mentioned by Matusinec, Williamson said that sewers are not available for the residential property, nor was it likely they would be in the foreseeable future.
At the same time, he said that while he understood Cotton’s plans for the building, water and sewer are available to that property.
“And despite the [current] intent of Cotton at this point, water and sewer could be made available to the building at any time.”
He advised council to be careful in its consideration because approval “could open the doors for future buildings.”
Williamson said proponents could state that the building is simply a shed, to get around development charges for water and sewers “… and a year later, a washroom etc., goes into the building.”
He was uncertain how to track or enforce the fees at a later date.
Williamson said there is a big difference between properties where no services are available to those where they are. He did not disagree that it seemed ridiculous to pay charges for services they will not use.
Councillor Ross Chaulk suggested if sewers were ever hooked up, the township would know because the township would be contacted for the hookup.
“The fees would then be applicable.”
Williamson said it would still be difficult to put in place, because the fees would change.
He added that the individual went to the water and sewer department, the typical hookup fee is only $3,000 – that would require checking the property file as well.
Chaulk felt that even if it required a bit of book work, to save $20,000 that need not be spent, it would be worth it.
Chief building official Darren Jones said that this building is not required to have plumbing. If it is ever proposed, Jones said, there would need to be a building permit and property searches are done before permits are issued.
Treasurer John Jeffrey said he was sympathetic to the request, but he was uncertain the development charges bylaw as it stood allowed portions of those charges to be exempted.
He believes the bylaw would need to be changed to make the exemptions – or to provide a mechanism to exempt accessory buildings.
Jeffrey added that similar requests have been turned down before.
Matusinec said council amends bylaws all the time and recommended the next council take a hard look at the issue and the bylaw.
“It’s ludicrous to pay development charges on something you’re not using.”
He believes something could be done by council now to help the proponent move ahead and look at the overall amendment of the bylaw at a later date.
Chaulk recommended that CAO/Clerk Lori Heinbuck find out it council can do that, and report back at council later in the month.
Councillor Dan Yake agreed council needs to find out about the development charges bylaw first.
“The whole bylaw itself is different than any other little bylaw that we pass.’
He understood that any changes require a public meeting and consultation, “I don’t think it’s a matter of just making a change.”
He personally did not have a problem with making the amendment, but he suspected it will take more time to investigate the issue, and that it may take more than a few weeks to deal with it.
Heinbuch said she would have an answer to council by its next meeting.
Cotton added that originally he had hoped to put the building up this year, but now with the lateness of the season he said, “I can wait it out for $20,000 to $25,000 savings.”
Matusinec maintained that a tin building with a dirt floor does not compare to an industrial factory.
Williamson said council will need to decide if its decision is retroactive.
He said some properties owners have paid the fee.
Mayor Mike Broomhead asked if those were on industrial or commercial properties.
“I don’t care what it’s zoned. You know that the minute you make an exception, you’re going to have someone on your doorstep [asking for a similar exemption].”
Broomhead said that zoning is a big issue in this.
“Why?” asked Williamson.
Broomhead said there was a similar situation on Industrial Drive in Mount Forest, and the comments came from the people who drafted the development charges bylaw.
While Williamson agreed the sewer portion of the charge was ridiculous for a service that would never be used.
But the water portion goes to cover the water services used by fire trucks to provide fire protection.
“Whether or not the building has a bathroom or not does matter.”
He suggested perhaps some of the development charges paying for water should remain for that reason.
Broomhead understood that Cotton’s development would have no water or sewer.
Cotton contended that the development charge as outlined – includes development charges for fire protection.
