County News

Taking out the trash

Posted: October 3, 2024 at 9:31 am   /   by   /   comments (6)

Port Picton residents left to manage their own garbage

Roughly twenty-four homeowners in the Port Picton subdivision had their hopes dashed at last Thursday’s Committee of the Whole meeting, after Council decided it won’t take on their garbage pickup.

In July, a motion by Councillor Kate MacNaughton was passed, instructing staff to determine if the municipality was obligated to provide garbage pick-up service for the residents. Staff reviewed the subdivision agreement, and determined there is no municipal responsibility to provide service in the Port Picton subdivision.

Greg Locke represents the Common Element Condominium Corporation in Port Picton. He told Council that currently, the homeowners aren’t receiving good service, and have put in notice to terminate the contract.

“We were under the understanding as owners, of course, we would be paying for that privately. We found that we were put under a very difficult contract with a private waste services company. We are paying about $3,000 monthly for only about 25 homes,” he said.

He also felt there was confusion regarding building types, as he told Council he does not own a condo.

“We need to have the service, and we see no reason why we can’t have it. It’s a mistake to call us a condominium. It was stated in the report you will not provide service to condominiums. The fact of the matter is we are not condominiums. We are about two dozen individual freehold homeowners,” he said.

He also felt providing service would not set precedent for other developments.

“We are not wanting to make a precedent, and I suggest that you don’t need to make it a precedent. If you do have a contractual obligation, do it for us, but then moving forward, make sure these subdivision agreements are clearer.”

According to the staff report, the roads within the development are designed to a standard typical of a private condominium, which is a lesser standard than that for municipally assumed roads. It was never intended that the municipality assume the roads within the development, and their configuration would present challenges for the County’s current waste contractor to safely and consistently navigate the development.

According to Planning Coordinator Matt Coffey, the County isn’t obligated to provide service.

“While it may be nice to provide waste pickup within Port Picton, it’s not something we are required to do, and there are some technical difficulties in actually doing that,” said Coffey.

He told Council that the developer’s lawyer and the County solicitor worked together on the subdivision agreements.

“It’s a complex agreement and a complex development. There was a condominium plan registered on top of the subdivision agreement that superseded the subdivision itself. All of the clauses are standard for what a subdivision agreement normally contains.”

Coffey also noted that issues such as this one would normally get dealt with in either a condo declaration or a site plan agreement, but the County didn’t require site plan approval for the condos or freehold lots.

“And we don’t get involved with condo declarations, because that is up to the developer to create and pass on to a condo corporation,” he added.

Councillor Phil St-Jean worried about other common element corporations coming forward with the same asks.

“It worries me that we are going to set a very bad precedent. I can see in the future something coming from Wellington on the Lake saying ‘hey what about us?’ We have to think about every other one,” he said.

A motion was then put forward by Councillor St-Jean which, if approved, would add a common collection pickup point within Port Picton at the owner’s expense.

Councillor Brad Nieman asked about the feasibility of such a motion.

“I’m guessing we have to go to the developer because they don’t have a designated spot. Now they have to reconfigure everything,” he said.

Albert Paschkowiak, Supervisor of Environmental Services and Sustainability, told Council his department would have to look for a suitable location and determine if there is one.

Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer felt the municipality shouldn’t be involved.

I think I heard the deputant say that the vertical condo already has a common collection bin on site. For me, I think it would make more sense for the homeowners to go and figure something out with them and then we are not involved at all.”

The motion failed. A motion did pass directing staff to explore the establishment of an internal process to facilitate a charge-back for services provided to any future developments prior to municipal assumption of infrastructure and bring forward as part of a subsequent update to the Fees and Charges By-Law.

Comments (6)

write a comment

Comment
Name E-mail Website

  • October 7, 2024 at 12:24 pm Dan

    If the developers don’t care about the people they sell homes to, do you think they care about the rest of us?

    We need to stop this madness. This council – all of them – has to go. And we desperately need a new Mayor who isnt on vacation from Toronto.

    Reply
    • October 7, 2024 at 12:48 pm Teena

      THANK YOU!

      Reply
  • October 6, 2024 at 9:21 am Disappointed But Not Surprised

    Yet another cautionary tale, more evidence that developers only care about their own interests, and Council and Staff care only about their own interests.

    And none of those interests are aligned with taxpayers and residents.

    Will the hordes of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal retirees that are the primary target for the houses these existing and new developers are pitching, care about this? Probably not. Or maybe they will.

    Either way, makes one wonder whether there will be sufficient hordes flocking to the County to buy these thousands of 600-800K and up homes. Logic suggests that this is unlikely.

    But it does not matter to Council and Staff, because they can just jack taxes higher and higher. The County has a negative net worth of $38 million as of a year ago, is digging deeper all the time, and is signing up for massive spending based on speculation and incomplete data. Think the Province will bail us out? Think again. And the Feds? No chance. That leaves only two ways to pay for that spending — borrowing and taxes.

    The borrowing limit is almost tapped out, so no one should be surprised when the upcoming budget deliberations start with a pitch to raise taxes in the double digit range.

    Enough should be enough, but it remains to be seen how much County people really care about this.

    Reply
    • October 6, 2024 at 10:29 am Starsky

      We’re struggling to pay the property taxes now, and with no additional benefits to the Residents, for well over a dozen y ears. We’re rural, but I suspect those in towns are in the same situation. Council needs a head shake, and a shake up.

      Reply
  • October 6, 2024 at 8:16 am SM

    The County agreed to the form of this development knowing full well that it would not be responsible for upkeep of the roads and infrastructure, snow removal and garbage collection. It also knew that it would be collecting taxes at the same rate as every other County residential taxpayer. In other words a windfall for the County. The developer agreed to the terms knowing full well that it would be able to ‘squeeze’ in more houses thus maximizing profit. As well by creating a condo to own those common elements, the developer has avoided any future responsibility over those lands. A win win situation? Not for the people that bought into this development. Of course, they knew, or ought to have known what they were buying into.
    Wellington on the Lake is in a similar situation regarding infrastructure, but in its case, the developer owns the common elements. It collects monthly payments from the residents to pay for services and upkeep. Residents there also knew the structure before they moved in.
    Of course, problems such as those complained of in Port Picton could be avoided if the County did not enter into subdivision agreements that create those problems.

    Reply
  • October 3, 2024 at 10:39 pm Mark

    Nice pic. Get rid of that old building Shire Hall that is is not only undated but carrys so many wrongs to so many people. Former Queen Elizabeth school is a perfect fit for a Municipal Building. Accessible where as Shire Hall has no access unless attemping to jay walk on a very busy intersection. In todays world I find it hard to believe that we maintain a Municipal Building that has no crosswalk for Seniors or handicapped individuals to safely access from the street. The added plus is that we no longer have taxes paying the Edward for leased space that is extreme and not required.

    Reply