Pre-Servicing Agreement Ontario
(4) In view of the above, why should the “city attorney” be motivated to protect municipal interests in order to reach an agreement that would result in premature or totally unnecessary destruction of the environment? The Citysolicitor states that this is a “common practice”. It is my understanding that when communities in very suburban areas where a significant number of subdivisions are built enter into premature site plans, the impact is low when there is little existing housing. This is in contradiction with the current situation of a mature neighborhood, which is negatively affected by this development. He says it will “protect municipal interests.” It is true that this agreement must be concluded as a condition of the agreement, but why must it be premature? “The city`s lawyer” then claimed that a quick agreement would be reached “to restore the land. in the event that there is no development. If there were no premature destruction, there would be no need for any form of restoration. In short, the “city attorney” provided no credible reason to reach a quick deal. If a party is a person, this Agreement will continue to be binding on that person`s respective heirs, executors, legal representatives and administrators. “Successors and Assigns” means all successors in title of the Promoter as if such successor had entered into this Agreement in place of the Developer, and in the event that more than one successor to the Developer or successors in title for any part of the Property, all such parties shall be collectively deemed to be developers under the terms of this Agreement.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is provided that the Developer`s obligations shall also be binding on all successors in title of the Developer of the Land, with the exception of the Land Transferred to the City, but no transfer to a successor in title releases the Developer from its obligations under this Agreement. (g) The modalities and timing of the publication of the agreement are contrary to due process and are not democratic. (a)the proposed transferee has entered into a takeover agreement acceptable to the city`s solicitor; Developer acknowledges and agrees that, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no prior maintenance is permitted with respect to the Services, if necessary, located outside the countries, unless CityEngineer`s prior written consent is obtained. Subject to the foregoing, all such external services will be created pursuant to a subdivision agreement and only after the subdivision agreement on the ownership of the land has been registered and all titles required under that agreement have been filed with the city. b) The agreement is premature and no credible reason has been provided that it is necessary before the CONDITION of the OMB has been lifted. 7) The “City Attorney`s Agreement” states in Schedule C that $100,000 is sufficient security to restore what was currently destroyed. My model is that it should be $500,000 if there is an early agreement. If reasonably expected, these funds should be used to “restore the country if development does not progress”. The fact that the municipality must take a firm stand in this matter is reflected in the bad faith shown by the developer in destroying the foliage without authorization. The East York Community Council would like the protocol to make the following statement to the developer of the Governors` Bridge subdivision.
The municipal authority will determine the exact terms of the agreement and the statutes of this subdivision. The Proponent must comply with each section of the Agreement, all under the law, all federal and provincial laws and standards. Any previous action that violates any laws or laws will result in the full prosecution of all laws that have been processed. We hereby commission a comprehensive survey of the developer`s behavior in previous actions. There is a lot of concern in my community. This development will have a major impact. The land is ecologically important on the banks of the Don River, We expect the communal authority to apply the law. We expect every member of our community to be informed of all new developments.
The conditions for approval of the plan of subdivision are diverse and complicated. We expect them to be enforced. Knowledgeable residents told me that old trees had also been removed. You have to tell that developer that they respect the law or that they are not even trying to build. The rejection of the proposed agreement by the “city attorneys” and the adoption of the replacement application should convey the message to the developer and the community. The East York Community Council wants to assure the Governors Bridge neighbourhood that it has made a mistake by failing to inform the entire community in time of this proposed pre-service agreement. We would like to include the pre-service agreement in the site plan agreement. We will also make the OMB complainant and abutter, as well as an elected member of the community, the part of the site map. We will also order that any trees that have been improperly removed by the developer or urban land be replaced immediately, and the developer will be asked to deposit $100,000 with the municipality to preserve these trees permanently. 5) The “city attorney” agreement is flawed because it does not contain a map in Appendix B.
2) The agreement proposed by the “city attorney” was distributed, to my knowledge, to two people in my community, there were between 7 and 8 days for these two people to respond. There is a strange coincidence to this event. From November 3 to 98, my lawyer and I went to the municipal offices to find out what was happening on the ghost land. That night, I received a copy in the mailbox with the agreement and cover letter of November 3/98. The letter from the “city`s lawyer” was dated “28/98 October”. Is it possible that no member of the community would have received notification of this agreement if I had not investigated the matter? No municipal employees were aware of what had happened. .