Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 11, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004552
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant: Chatham-Kent Home Builders' Association Appellant: Hensar Corporation Appellant: Jodamar Properties Appellant: Maple City Homes Inc. Description: Development Charges By-law No. 149-2022 Property Address: Municipal Wide Municipality: Municipality of Chatham-Kent OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004552 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004552 OLT Case Name: Chatham-Kent Home Builders’ Association v. Chatham-Kent (Municipality)
Heard: May 15, 2024, by Video Hearing (“VH”)
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Municipality of Chatham-Kent | Paul DeMelo |
| Chatham-Kent Homebuilders’ Association | Laura McFalls |
| Maple City Homes Inc. | Laura McFalls |
| Hensar Corporation | Laura McFalls |
| Jodamar Properties | Steve Pickard |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ROBERT G. ACKERMAN ON MAY 15, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
PURPOSE
1The Tribunal heard a Settlement Hearing for appeals related to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent (“Municipality”) Development Charges By-law No. 148-2022 (“DC By-law”) which was passed by the Council for the Municipality on August 8, 2022.
2The DC By-law establishes Development Charges (“DC”) to fund growth-related infrastructure works required as the result of anticipated population and employment growth. The DC By-law applies to all residential and non-residential development in the Municipality, subject to limited exemptions as set out therein.
3Appeals were filed pursuant to s. 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, SO 1997, c. 27 (“Act”). The Appeals are not site-specific and are City-wide, applying to the entirety of the Municipality. The Appellants are Chatham-Kent Homebuilders’ Association (“CKHA”); Maple City Homes Inc. (“Maple City”); Jodamar Properties Inc. (“Jodamar”) and Hensar Corporation (“Hensar”).
4Counsel confirmed to the Tribunal that a settlement of all Appeals had been reached and that Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) had been executed by all parties. Counsel proposed to call one witness to provide evidence in support of the terms of the settlement, being Byron Tam, a land economist with Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., which was the firm that had prepared the Development Charges Background Study (“DC Study”) for the Municipality. Mr. Tam’s C.V. and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty were filed as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. Mr. Tam was qualified on consent to provide opinion evidence respecting the DC Study, the application of the provisions of the Act and the terms of the settlement.
5The MOS had been filed with the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator prior to the Hearing, and Mr. Tam directed the Tribunal to Schedule “A” attached to the MOS, which contained a table listing the revised Development Charge Rates (“Revised DC Rates”) agreed to by all parties. The MOS has been executed on behalf of the Appellants CKHA, Maple City, Jodamar, Hensar, and on behalf of the Municipality. Schedule “A” and the MOS were collectively marked as Exhibit 3. Mr. Tam testified that Schedule “B” to the DC By-law listed the original Development Charge Rates (“Original DC Rates”) which are the subject of the Appeals, and that the terms of the settlement provide that Schedule “A” of the MOS replace Schedule “B” to the DC By-law and amend the DC Rates therein accordingly.
6Mr. Tam testified as to his opinion that the Revised DC Rates conform with the provisions of the Act and with the requirements of Sections 5(1)6 and 5(1)9 for the determination of DC Charges. Mr. Tam also testified that the Revised DC Rates are less than the amounts specified in Section 5(6)4 of the Act. Mr. Tam recommended that the Tribunal approve the settlement and order that Schedule “B” of the DC By-law be amended in accordance with the Revised DC Charges as listed in Exhibit 3.
7The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Tam and finds that, in accordance with Section 16(4) of the Act,
a. the Revised DC Charges do not increase the amount payable in any particular case;
b. the terms of the settlement do not remove, or reduce the scope of an exemption;
c. the terms of the Settlement do not change a provision for the phasing in of development charges in such a way as to make a charge, or part of a charge, payable earlier;
d. the terms of the Settlement do not change the date on which the DC By-law will expire;
e. The Revised DC Rates conform with the provisions of the Act in all other respects;
f. that the Tribunal will approve the settlement and order that Schedule “B” of the DC By-law be amended in accordance with the Revised DC Rates contained in Exhibit 3.
ORDER
8The Tribunal orders that Development Charges By-law No. 148-2022 be and the same is hereby amended by deletion of Schedule “B” in its entirety and its replacement with Attachment “A” to this Decision.
“Robert G. Ackerman”
ROBERT G. ACKERMAN MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT A