The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Dave Coons Chair of the Board Do You Want To Have A Say in How The Halton Board Of Education Communicates With the Community? Here Is Your Chance To Get Involved! Three members of the public are needed to serve on a Communications Review Committee. Call Anne at (416) 335â€"3663/(416) 878â€"8451 (North), ext. 3350 for information/application. Applications must be received by May 30th, 1993. One representative will be selected by lot for each of the three areas of Halton (North, East, West). Your Opinion Counts! "Pursuing Excellence in Educanon Cnniinal an s Director of Education MERCEDES BENZ VOLVO/SUZUKI Bob Williams KENNEDY FORD A request from developers that lots already serviced and homes which have been constructed but not sold also be exempt from the new charges was rejected by town council. The rate for nonâ€"residential developâ€" ment jumps from $36.58 per sq. m ($3.40 per sq. ft.) to $65 per sq. m ($6.01 per sq. ft.). The new rate, howevâ€" er, will be phased in over a fiveâ€"year period, said Michelle Sequin, the town‘s finance director and treasurer. The new charge for nonâ€"residential is $25.90 per sq. m ($2.41 per sq. ft.) prior to July 1st. Developers upset by increases (Continued from page 1) HONDA effective immediately, increasing to $31.80 per sq. m ($2.96 per sq. ft.) in November, and then again by eight cents and 16 cents over the next two years respectively. The new bylaw also provides for a oneâ€"time exemption on the first 450 sq. m (5,000 sq. ft.) of a redevelopment or expansion of existing businesses which existed prior to October 7th, 1991, as did the old bylaw. "At the end‘of the bylaw, we will still not be at the (nonâ€"residential) level the town could actually impose," Seguin said. Council also agreed to exempt two Residential developers were outâ€" raged at the increases, which the town has justified by adopting a more aggresâ€" sive capital roads program over the next 10 years. The old bylaw spread the roads program over a 20â€"year period. Wegler said the developer invested in servicing numerous lots in the West Oak Trails development on the assumption the 1991 development charges bylaw would be in effect for five years. "We developed the lots with the understanding there‘s a market for home in a certain price range," Wegler said. "‘Now the price will increase by $5,000. The market is different now, we can‘t pass those costs on to the home buyer," he added. Saul Merrick, president of Merrick Homes, echoed Wegler‘s comment. Merrick said the new development charges mean he will be "penalized" on money already invested to purchase numerous lots from a developer. Merrick said the bylaw should allow for "grandfathering" of new lots and homes already in the market but not sold "so we can continue to be competitive." private Oakville schools, St. Mildred‘s Lightbourn School and Appleby College, from the new development charges because of their nonâ€"profit staâ€" tus. The two schools are also exempt from the Region of Halton‘s developâ€" ment charges bylaw. ""We‘ve never objected to paying our way, it‘s just the amounts," said Eric Wegler, viceâ€"president of the River Oaks Group. Merrick also read a letter from the Greater Toronto Home Builders Association on behalf of Peter Langer, the organization‘s first viceâ€"president. "The GTHBA wishes to express its continued shock at the massive increase in residential and nonâ€"residential develâ€" opment charges which are being proâ€" posed...," the letter stated. Langer said in the letter because of the increases, the GTHBA "will be forced to consider joining the (Ontario Municipal Board) appeal of your current bylaw or initiating a further appeal to the OMB of the proposed bylaw." The Urban Development Institute, representing various groups involved in Ontario‘s development industry, is curâ€" rently appealing the town‘s 1991 develâ€" opment charges bylaw to the OMB. The hearing, which began May 17th in Oakville, adjourned Wednesday on the request of UDI, council was told by its legal staff. Yvonne Hamlin, a lawyer representing UDI in its appeal, said in an interview, "the matter is going to court on the 1991 (bylaw) appeal." Hamlin said UDI will ask the court to issue a ruling on "questions on how (the Development Charges) Act should rule (on the issues)," she said. The court case will be heard in Ontario Divisional Court in Toronto. Hamlin said no court date has yet been set. She said she expects the OMB hearâ€" ing, scheduled for 10 weeks, to resume early in the new year. be interpreted. Once the framework is set, then will go back and the OMB will rule (on the issues)," she said. The court case will be heard in Ontario Divisional Court in Toronto. It was evident early in the meeting that the hearing was first and foremost in the minds of councillors, who rejected a motion from Ward 2 councillor Fred Oliver that the issue be deferred to allow for more discussion. » "I can‘t support a motion to defer, said Ward 1 regional councillor Kevin Flynn. "Our responsibilities are to the citizens of the town. We‘ve had instrucâ€" tion from legal counsel as to what we believe we should do to put the town in the best position of strength (at the OMB hearing). His advice was not to defer," Flynn said. Council met briefly in camera with its legal staff to receive an update on the OMB hearing.