Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRevision - 2006-04-24COURT OF REVISION MINUTES APRIL 24, 2006 CITY OF KITCHENER The Court of Revision met this date commencing at 3:05 p.m. Present: Councillor B. Vrbanovic -Chair Councillor J. Smola Councillor M. Galloway Staff: F. McCrea, Assistant City Solicitor D. Kerr, Design & Construction Technologist J. Billett, Committee Administrator H. Dyson, Assessment Clerk This meeting of the Court of Revision was called to consider any appeals respecting local improvement assessments for the construction of works in 2004. Notice of the meeting had previously been given by mail to affected property owners and by newspaper advertisement. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT WORKS The works and streets considered by the Court are the following: a) Sanitary Sewer & Connections - • Centennial Road, both sides, from 145m east of Forwell Road to Centennial Court; • Centennial Court, both sides, from Centennial Road to the end of the cul-de-sac; • Forwell Road, both sides, from Victoria Street North to 65m south of Centennial Road; • Victoria Street North, both sides, from 65m west of Forwell Road to 75m east of Lackner Boulevard; and, • Victoria Street North, both sides, from 40m east of Forwell Road to 150m east of Centennial Road. b) Sanitary Sewer & Connections and Watermain & Connections - • Rothsay Avenue, both sides, from Natchez Road to 150m east of Forfar Avenue. 2. DELEGATION - ROTHSAY AVENUE Mr. Frank Doherty, resident, attended in regard to local improvements undertaken on Rothsay Avenue and in particular with respect to his property at 34 Rothsay Avenue. It was noted that Mr. Doherty had not submitted a written appeal within the required timeframe in accordance with regulations under Ontario Regulation 119/03 (Local Improvement Charges) and was advised by Councillor B. Vrbanovic that the appeal deadline had passed. Mr. Doherty stated that he was present only because he had questions about the local improvement process, not to appeal the charges assessed against his property. Court members agreed to hear Mr. Doherty following conclusion of the hearing for appeals listed on the agenda this date. 3. APPEAL #2006-01 - 230 CENTENNIAL COURT The Court of Revision considered an appeal by Mr. Gordon Doughty, owner of 230 Centennial Court (Roll No. 060 016 038 15 0000). Mr. Doughty stated that his property is located at the end of the circle on Centennial Court, adjacent to Kolb Park. He advised that he entered into an agreement with the City of Kitchener wherein the City is allowed to encroach on a 5m portion of his frontage to use as a driveway entrance into the park. Mr. Doughty noted that the assessed charges apply against the full frontage of his property and suggested that he should not be required to pay the assessed amount equivalent to the 5m encroached on by the City. Mr. D. Kerr advised that in order to treat property owners fairly, local improvement charges are assessed against property frontages and all property owners in the subject area benefit equally from the work through their ability to connect to the sewer main. He noted that the frontage measurement against which the local improvement charges are assessed in regard to the subject property is correct. In response to Councillor J. Smola, Mr. Kerr stated that the sewer line does not go through Kolb Park but does extend through to Victoria Street by way of an easement on Mr. Doughty's COURT OF REVISION MINUTES APRIL 24, 2006 - 2 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. APPEAL #2006-01 - 230 CENTENNIAL COURT (CONT'D) property. Mr. Doughty stated that the said easement was approximately 15 m. Mr. Kerr pointed out that Mr. Doughty received compensation from the City for the easement, adding that if Mr. Doughty had not agreed to the easement, the line would have been diverted either through another property, or through the Park. Councillor J. Smola questioned if the portions of the property subject to the easement and the encroachment were both included in the assessed frontage, expressing the opinion an exemption should apply to both as the property owner has lost use of the lands. Mr. Kerr responded that both are included in the assessed frontage, reiterating that Mr. Doughty was compensated by the City for the easement. He added that Mr. Doughty retains ownership of the lands to which the easement and encroachment apply and still has use of the lands with the exception that he cannot build a structure. In response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Mr. Kerr advised that Mr. Doughty was paid the current rate for the easement, which is negotiated based on land area, and not on the services. Councillor J. Smola questioned if the local improvement regulations allowed for adjustments on corner lots. Ms. F. McCrea advised that Section 15 of the Local Improvement regulations allow adjustments to be made on irregular shaped parcels, which could be applied to this property. Councillor M. Galloway commented that Mr. Doughty agreed to the easement and was compensated by the City. Accordingly, he was not in favour of exempting the 15m easement as the owner still has opportunity to use the lands, but would support an exemption of the 5m encroachment adjacent to Kolb Park as it was being used as a driveway entrance to the park. On motion by Councillor M. Galloway - itwas resolved: "That the assessment for sanitary sewer and connections on Centennial Court against the property known municipally as 230 Centennial Court (Roll No. 060 016 038 15 0000), owned by Ham-Let Canada Inc., be reduced by 5m to 45.26m as a result of an encroachment agreement with the City of Kitchener wherein the City is granted permission to use 5m of the frontage of the subject land as an entrance to Kolb Park; and further, That the reduction be added to the City share of the cost of the work." 4. APPEAL #2006-02 -1680 VICTORIA STREET NORTH The Court of Revision considered an appeal by Mr. Michael W. McCarter, McCarter Grespan Beynon Thompson, solicitor for 2090810 Ontario Limited, owner of 1680 Victoria Street North (Roll No. 060 016 042 00 0000). Mr. Paul Mace, B. W. Strassburger, attended in support of the appeal regarding local improvement charges assessed against the property known municipally as 1680 Victoria Street North. Mr. Mace stated that the property was acquired in January 30, 2006. Prior to completing purchase of the property a property tax certificate, dated January 9, 2006, was received from the City which indicates no local improvement charges were outstanding or pending on the subject property. He indicated that he did not have any knowledge of the local improvement works until the local improvement notice dated March 31, 2006 was received. In addition, Mr. Mace advised that a new survey was completed for the property and the frontage assessed, as noted in the local improvement notice, is incorrect. He stated that the property survey indicates a frontage of 216.324m whereas the property has been assessed against a frontage of 250.24m. Ms. F. McCrea commented on the issue of the tax certificate advising that all requirements under the local improvement regulations were met. She noted that the appellant is a principal owner of an adjacent property at 1604 Victoria Street North and as such would have had knowledge of the local improvement works through the local improvement notices given in respect to 1604 Victoria Street North. In this regard, she suggested that it was not reasonable for the appellant to have relied on the tax certificate and to staff's knowledge no local improvement inquiries were 4. APPEAL #2006-02 -1680 VICTORIA STREET NORTH (CONT'D) COURT OF REVISION MINUTES APRIL 24, 2006 - 3 - CITY OF KITCHENER made to the Office of the City Clerk or Engineering Division respecting 1680 Victoria Street North. Ms. McCrea advised that the issue raised by Mr. Mace concerning the tax certificate is outside the mandate of the Court of Revision and Mr. Mace would have to file a separate claim against the City if he wished to pursue the matter. She added that the discrepancy in frontage measurements is within the mandate of the Court to consider. On review of the new property survey, it was determined that the frontage measurement was approximately 247m. Accordingly, it was agreed that Mr. Kerr would determine the actual frontage based on the new survey and adjust the assessed amount accordingly. On motion by Councillor J. Smola - itwas resolved: "That the assessment for sanitary sewer and connections on Victoria Street North against the property known municipally as 1680 Victoria Street North (Roll No. 060 016 042 00 0000), owned by 2090810 Ontario Limited, be reduced by 2.52m to 247.72m, based on the frontage measurements shown on a survey prepared by ACI Survey Consultants, dated January 24, 2006; and further, That the reduction be added to the City share of the cost of the work." 5. DELEGATION - 34 ROTHSAY AVENUE Mr. Frank Doherty then addressed the Court to pose questions with regard to his property at 34 Rothsay Avenue. Mr. Doherty stated that he was told a number of years ago that local improvements were pending on Rothsay Avenue; however, when the work did not proceed in the forecasted timeframe, he had a new septic system and well installed on his property, at a cost of approximately $12,000. He questioned if there was a means of reimbursement in this instance given the high cost of conversion to City services. In response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Mr. Doherty advised that the septic installation was completed approximately 10 years ago. Mr. D. Kerr advised that although there was a local improvement petition made some years ago, not all area residents were in favour of the work and accordingly, not enough signatures were obtained to allow the work to proceed. He noted that in 2004 opportunity arose to proceed with the works in conjunction with another City initiated project. At that time, residents appeared before Council to object to the high cost of the work and Council granted a 25% discount to all affected property owners, which has been applied. Mr. Kerr added that there is no mechanism within the provisions of the Local Improvement regulations or Municipal Act to reimburse Mr. Doherty for cost of the septic system. Accordingly, Councillor Vrbanovic advised Mr. Doherty that as there was no issue regarding 34 Rothsay Avenue before the Court that was within its mandate to consider, no action could be taken on his request. 6. ASSESSMENT OF BALANCE OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT CHARGES On motion by Councillor M. Galloway - itwas resolved: "That the balance of the assessments pertaining to local improvement charges considered by the Court of Revision this date be confirmed." 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Court of Revision adjourned at 3:40 p.m. H. Dyson Assessment Clerk J. Billett Committee Administrator