In reality, little has changed as the tweaking went on.
Coldstream's Mayor and Council haven't backed off on wanting residents to pay for works and services when a renovation or construction permit is applied for. To suggest that a garage or bathroom reno may have "directly attributable" impacts on road infrastructure, road safety, and road ditching is a manipulation of the Local Government Act (LGA) and Community Charter, among other things.
Even though this new version of the subdivision and development bylaw is going for first, second and (yup!) third readings on Monday, March 12th, 2012, Judy Paterson's building permit to construct a garage is still being withheld. Why? Presumably this is so the District can impose the new "directly attributable" characteristics that Coldstream has identified as problematic to her permit.
But this isn't just about Judy's permit, folks.
Individual families should not be expected to contribute to the repair of roads, and fix safety and drainage issues created by the District in the first place. Isn't this what our annual property taxes are for? Like previous draft (unpassed) versions, this bylaw will adversely affect Coldstream's property values and the financial situation of its residents. Remember: you cannot get a mortgage or buy insurance for property you do not own, so where is residents' money for this new tax going to come from?
The District of Coldstream continues to grasp at straws.
Residents will be scapegoats for drainage work on roads.
You know...that area below your fence on the road frontage...land you don't own.
This Mayor and Council have been spending money like there's no tomorrow.
They've spent almost $2 million on Urban Systems consultants (of Kelowna, of all places!), they want bike paths all over the community (stating that it'll be the panacea for diabetes, global warming/carbon footprint, etc. on and on it goes!)
Even with an almost 6 per cent tax increase scheduled for 2012, it's simply not enough to fund the insatiable appetite for your money from this Mayor and Council.
So they continue to come up with novel ways to have you pay them even more of your hard-earned money.
Having seen the error of their ways with charging residents to pay for non-infrastructure items such as bike paths with the first few drafts of the bylaw, if this proposed bylaw amendment (starts on page 27 of 84...the link takes a moment to load) sees third reading on Monday night, you'll now be footing the bill for drainage improvements. It even names roads (see page 30 of 84 at that link) on which any renovation/construction permit over $50,000 will trigger off-property drainage demands.
Huh?
Drainage?
At the northern tip of Canada's only quasi-desert where 86 per cent of precipitation evaporates?
In an area where retreating glaciers carved out drainages?
In Coldstream's rainshadow of the Coast Mountains?
In an effort to ram this through 3 readings on Monday night, here's what your Mayor and Council have adopted so far:
"THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that staff be directed to bring forward an amendment for Council's consideration to the Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw 1535, structured with a table generally based on the City of Kelowna's 'guidelines for determining servicing requirements' modified to suit District of Coldstream infrastructure requirements and an attached schedule identifying specific roads where drainage works would be considered as well as roadways where (*)specific safety issues would be considered. In addition, a clause where if triggered by a building permit, that the contribution to (**) necessary offsite works would be limited to a (***)pre-determined percentage of the building permit value, with a (****)cumulative maximum value being equal to the estimated total value of works required." (asterisks by blog author)
Plus "specific safety issues"?
Plus "necessary off site works ... limited to a pre-determined percentage ... with a cumulative maximum of the estimated total value of works required"???
OK, let's do an example:
Joe Blog on Buchanan Road applies for a building permit, value $50,000, to renovate his kitchen.
No increase in building footprint, no increase on infrastructure demands, no extra septic capacity...just a new kitchen. Not a complex building (because it's under 64,600 square feet) and isn't commercial or institutional usage.
Here's what could happen (and probably would) if the bylaw gets 3 readings:
Joe Blog gets his building permit.
What are Joe Blog's actual paperwork and renovation costs?
Follow along with this folks...
Kitchen renovation $50,000, Building application $100, building permit fee $643, each inspection or reinspection $100 (for this example, we'll assume the renovator did it right the first time), occupancy permit $100.
Total so far: $50,943. But hold on.
Here come the additional costs with the proposed bylaw.
The Approving Officer -- Craig Broderick, a bureaucrat at Coldstream -- determines either on his own, or after discussion with other bureaucrats (none of whom are elected) that there are directly attributable costs to Coldstream's infrastructure from Joe Blog's work. It'd be damn nice to have a bike path for the *safety of people walking/biking adjacent to a **newly-scraped out deeper drainage ditch because twice in 35 years the ditch has overflown with water. But since the bylaw doesn't state what the predetermined percentage is (***) pre-determined percentage of the building permit value, let's assume Joe Blog is charged 50% of his building permit value. But, on the bureaucrat's reasoning, the amount could increase to (****) cumulative maximum value being equal to the estimated total value of works required.
Revision One to Joe Blog's costs:
Expected Costs $50,943.
* Bike path along his road frontage: $200,000
** Newly-scraped out deeper ditch: $ 20,000
*** oops, says Coldstream, let's make it 100% of his building permit value because we didn't pre-determine (set) the percentage = $50,000.
**** oops, says Coldstream, since we're installing dual--separated--water lines and fire hydrants, plus curbs and catch basins for water on the road, let's get Joe Blog to pay for that cumulative max value of the estimated total value of works = $200,000.
Joe Blog's expected costs of $50,943 have--with this bylaw adopted in this form--risen to ten times what he expected: $500,943.
And Joe Blog can't go to the bank and ask for the extra money to complete his renovation; banks don't give money for work on land you don't own...ever.
And insurance companies won't insure work you've paid for adjacent to your building on land you don't own.
Nonsense, you say? The District of Coldstream surely wouldn't do that.
A whole bunch of residents on Tassie Drive would argue with you. About 10 years ago, the District of Coldstream levied them each a charge of $12,000 for a 3-inch concrete curb along their ~80-foot road frontage. So? Well, if you ask any concrete curb contractor today...10 years later...that work would cost no more than $2,000.
Naturally, Joe Blog withdraws his building permit application and lives with his old kitchen.
For a while.
Until he can get the hell out of Dodge.
Or, until he can attend the meeting to fight the bylaw and this Mayor and Council's lust for our money.
Monday, March 12, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. (at Lavington School).
Then on Monday, March 17, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at Coldstream Municipal Hall Council Chambers you can attend and listen to the Mayor and Council crying that the public stopped them.
"Or see them smiling because residents didn't show up," offers Kia.
Note: Councillor Peter McClean is the ONLY councillor who is against homeoners being charged with these horrendous extra infrastructure costs.
"Develop" & "Development" defined in the Subdivision and Development Bylaw (1535, 2008): "any construction to which the Building Bylaw applies."
ReplyDeleteThe Building Bylaw: "is enacted and retained for the purpose of regulating construction on the land, the surface of the water, air space, buildings and structures within the municipal boundaries of Coldstream in the general public interest" (DOC Building Bylaw 1442, 2004) in accordance with the BC Building Code. That is the purpose of the Building Bylaw - to make sure no one builds anything that is unsafe. And, the only building permit that is managed under the Subdivision and Development Bylaw are building permits associated with complex buildings and subdivision developments. Complex buildings are those that are over 6,460 square feet, 3 stories in height and generally made up of structures like businesses, factories, care facilities etc. Why? Because they have the potential to put excessive demands on infrastructure. If you add more people and more buildings, you put demands on existing infrastructure. If you are subdividing your land then you need a variance permit to subdivide (or a development permit to add a bunch of houses to your land). The subdivision of land is a big deal in this country. Why? Because property rights are a big deal in this country. Everyone is entitled to subdivide their land. Even if the planners don't like you and the council thinks you are not a nice person. The subdivision of land is legislated under the Land Titles Act. Its a big deal and Land Titles gives authority to manage the subdivision of land in municipalities to an Approving Officer (our Approving Officer is Craig Broderick). In the Land Titles Act he can only use his authority as an Approving Officer in the case of the subdivision of land. The definitions and descriptions of his role are defined in the Act. Clearly, transparently, no ambiguity or subjectivity. His authority as an officer of Land Titles rests solely in the subdivision of land. Not in the decision-making about how much your new powder room is going to make the road unsafe in front of your house. From the get-go this bylaw was manipulated. The definitions are vague and allow great latitude in "translation." And, the municipality, the mayor and the bureaucrats know that if they push you to the wall with their vaguely defined terms, you can't do anything other than abandon your life plans, sell and leave (which I've been encouraged to do several times), or take them to court - ON YOUR TAX DOLLARS - you pay their bill. That means I pay my lawyer not so painful, comparatively speaking!! It becomes normalized - its just the way things are. If you don't like it, leave. But its in contravention of provincial legislation. Local governments don't make LAW they make bylaws to ensure that provincial legislation is followed. Part of their role is to manage our tax dollars and fix the roads - to their own standards (there are few roads that Coldstream has built that actually meet their own standards). And while this Council is spending your money irresponsibly and beyond their scope of influence, other more progressive municipalities know that putting in roads and curbs and gutters and paving simply creates pollution, drainage problems and maintenance costs. The District's bylaw was never permitted to be applied to standard building permits for single family homes and renovations. Now they are trying to convince people that this is the solution to an onerous bylaw. One that they could never apply in the first place. Read it carefully because they have just given themselves power to basically request 150% of your permit value - its in the Development Cost Charges Best Practice Guide for subdivision developments and I guarantee you, if our situation is any indication, thats exactly where they will go. With some people.
As a result of the story post, received this email the same day from District of Coldstream's approving officer, Craig Broderick:
ReplyDelete"Hi,
I sent an e-mail to a resident who was asking about the proposed amendment. I think it provides a summary of the proposed changes.
'The proposed bylaw amendment would remove most frontage upgrade requirements (i.e. water, sewer, road, road reserve or right-of-way) for: additions/alterations to single family and two family homes or new construction of single family and two family homes. The only frontage requirement that would be evaluated is drainage for those properties listed on the Schedule 12. If drainage deficiencies were identified along the frontage, the owner would be asked to help rectify the problem to a maximum of $2,500. In some cases, the solution could cost much less (i.e. culvert, ditching). The Building Official tries to find solutions that help solve the drainage issue and provide a benefit to the owner (i.e. taking drainage from their driveway).'
The percentage aspect didn’t really work because the maximum contribution is set at $2,500. If drainage works are requested, the actual amount could be much less but no more than $2,500. Also the $50,000 exemption means that any project under $50,000 is not expected to contribute anything to drainage.
Hopefully that helps explain the proposed changes.
Thanks,
Craig"
Blog author NOTE re approving officer's email:
Sure, but there's no reference at all to what "SAFETY" requirements could encompass along an owner's roadfrontage. What if the approving officer--and Council--believes risks to safety aren't mitigated unless the homeowner, for example, pays for the installation of a 13 foot wide walking path for the community's residents. All along his 700 feet of frontage!
So the bylaw remains nebulous in how it would impact certain people on certain streets...some with a minimum charge of $2,500 (for which we're apparently supposed to be grateful...go figure!), and some with a looming $200,000 potential safety upgrade.
The depth/extent of any "extended services" should not be dependent on back-room, closed door deals with a bureaucrat. And Council knows that, despite the Mayor's philosophy that wealthy people should pay back. So just how do they determine that someone is wealthy? What kind of discussions lead to that determination? Only a fly on the wall knows that answer. Fortunately, flies don't write bylaws.
If the bylaw is nebulous, it's neither transparent, nor predictable.
Ergo...no improvement over the last draft.
Oh...and the FIRST drainage that the District of Coldstream should repair is THEIR OWN WORK at Kidston Road's recently-constructed bike path.
In response to Mr. Broderick's letter above, the original bylaw (the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw 1535 2008) was never intended to be used to demand any kind of frontage upgrades or any other works, services, curbs, gutters, drainage, safety or any gifting on single and dual family home builds, renovations, and alterations. The original application of frontage upgrades on a $50,000 permit was for the subdivision or variance of land. If you aren't subdividing, you pay nothing. The District does not have the authority to demand offsite works and services unless the permit requests the subdivision of land and that the permit is for a complex building or variance the places new demands on existing infrastructure. So this new bylaw is another corruption of the permitting process. I encourage people to get informed about the permitting process because the District is manipulating the intent of the Local Government Act. I have previously written that local governments are given "broad" powers by provincial legislation. They are not, however, given powers to enact new taxes. Period. Please come and be heard at the next Council meeting when this bylaw will be passed without consultation with homeowners, rezoning of properties on roads with drainage "issues" and due process.
ReplyDelete