Courtesy Photo

WINCHESTER – Prior to the start of their regularly scheduled meeting on Thurs., Sept. 26, North Dundas held a special meeting regarding a complaint received from Edwin and Francine Duncan concerning development charges they were assessed after making changes to a building they own at the corner of County Road 16 and County Road 3.

The building, which previously was used for commercial purposes, had six separate garage bays. The Duncan’s converted one of the garage bays and the office area into a one-bedroom apartment of less than 800 square feet. However, since by definition the building had been changed into a single-family dwelling, the Duncan’s were charged the development fee prescribed by the township’s development bylaw.  As they felt that the fee they were charged was both incorrect and unfair, the Duncan’s file the complaint.

Council heard from Calvin Pol, the Director of Development Services, who walked them through the complaint and the pertinent legislation Mr. Pol that this situation was unusual and because of changes made to the development bylaw the Duncan’s situation could be determined to fit into several different categories and at the same time not perfectly into any one of them. Part of the problem was that the development charge bylaw was amended some time ago based on recommendations from a consultant. “… The division of our current division only has six categories right now broken down, and we used to have about eight to nine categories in the old bylaw.”

Pol later stated that it was the first time in his career that he had encountered a situation like this.

Mr. Pol’s report presented Council with four options, the first being that they defer any decision to the next meeting of Council on October 10, to allow time for discussion and consideration. The remaining three recommendations were as follows:

  1. That Council has heard the complaint from Edwin and Francine Duncan regarding the development charges for Change of Use Permit No. 2024-006 and hereby dismisses the complaint in accordance with Section 20(6) of the Development Charges Act. (DC charge remains at $7,039.40). Based on the definitions in Development Charges Bylaw 2022-35, Edwin & Francine Duncan were charged for a single detached dwelling minus a full credit for the commercial space (4,500 sq. Ft.) conversion to accessory garages for a total of $7,039.40.

Single Detached Dwelling Charge $9,319.40 (2.69 ppu)
Credit – Commercial use to Residential -$2,310.00
Total    $7,039.40

  1. That Council has heard the complaint from Edwin and Francine Duncan regarding the development charges for Change of Use Permit No. 2024-006 and hereby imposes a total development charge of $1,645.05, in accordance with Section 20(6) of the Development Charges Act. Mr. Duncan argued that they should be paying the Apartments Bachelor and 1 bedroom charge of $3,955.05 minus the commercial space (4,500 sq. ft.) conversion to accessory garage for a total of $1,645.05.

Apartments Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Apt. $3,955.05 (1.14 ppu)
Credit – Commercial use to Residential
(Entire Building Credit) -$2,310.00
Total    $1,645.05

  1. That Council has heard the complaint from Edwin and Francine Duncan regarding the development charges for Change of Use Permit No. 2024-006 and hereby imposes a total development charge of $3,427.05, in accordance with Section 20(6) of the Development Charges Act. This amount is based on consideration of the fairness in the application of the D.C. By-law, where only 800 square feet of the building is being converted to residential, thus the credit should only apply to that portion of the existing building being converted to residential occupancy as follows:

Apartments Bachelor and 1 Bedroom $3,955.05 (1.14 persons per unit-ppu)
Credit – Commercial use to Residential
(Living Space Credit 800 sq. Ft.) – $528.00
Total $3,427.05

Mayor Tony Fraser read the motions to Council, asking three times after each if there was a mover and a seconder. Council decided that they chose option whereby the Duncan’s would be assessed $1,645.05 with the motion moved by Councillor Matthew Uhrig and seconded by Councillor John Lennox. The motion passed with all in favour.

Mayor Tony Fraser commented that it was his belief that they would need to take a closer look at their development bylaw because while this may have been an unusual situation, with changes happening in the types of homes that are being allowed (tiny homes for example) an issue like this could crop up again.

“…I do have a question: How does this affect our bylaw and what is… are there any changes we need to entertain now because of recognizing this small home or tiny home in essence both a large garage as an apartment, asked Mayor Fraser. “It does seem unusual we don’t have a slot for that. I’m sorry, it does not seem unusual that we don’t have a slot, the question, the request is unusual, but do we need to manage our bylaw.”

“I would suggest that it might be something we look at, we are looking at adding some fire services to the bylaw itself so at that time might be a good time to look at the definitions a little more closely to determine does it include tiny homes and should we be taking into consideration apartments in certain buildings such as this.”

“This is an unusual circumstance where you see a commercial building being converted into an apartment,” added Pol. “It’s not an average thing; it’s the first time I’ve seen this kind of thing in 25 years 26 years so it’s like, how often does that come up, but it might be worthwhile to look at it going forward with tiny homes and things like that where your size and number of bedrooms is more applicable than maybe the type of unit that it is.”