Developer Wins Multi-Million Dollar Development Contributions Case Against City

Developers in the District who have gained control of taxpayer-owned land have contributed substantial sums to local political campaigns, often going to individuals with close connections to city officials.

As part of these land deals, developers are required to partner and subcontract with smaller local firms known as "certified business entities." WAMU discovered some of these CBEs have political connections to city council members.

Carillon Tower

Z Capital Group has conceded significant control at the Carillon Miami Wellness Resort after a Florida circuit judge ruled their master declaration vesting authority over common areas is invalid and illegal. This ruling came Monday and is seen as a victory by condominium associations who sued Z Capital and its affiliates over various matters.

The associations have asserted that the Carillon master declaration violates the state Condominium Act by "transforming condominium democracy into a dictatorship of unlimited control by" private commercial entities. In a court filing, they said the master declaration constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on their right to self-government.

Z Capital and its affiliates persisted in their pursuit of Carillon Tower, filing a lawsuit in federal court against the associations in May 2016 seeking an order that they pay back $49.5 million to investors who invested their money there.

They are now asking the court for 45 days to raise enough money to refund their investors. If not, then they will have to pay damages.

Meanwhile, Chinese investors who invested $550,000 into the project are suing its developers and affiliates for fraud and other violations. The plaintiffs contend that defendants' marketing of the EB-5 program created the false impression that $49.5 million would be used to repay their investments; furthermore, they claim there was never a formal project plan submitted to Chicago officials; furthermore, TD Bank released $50,000 from escrow funds despite there being no formal project plan submission made.

Everton Heights

Everton Heights is a new estate situated in the leafy suburb of Everton Hills that offers spacious three bedroom townhouses at various price points. As an investment project, this development presents investors with strong rental returns and long-term growth potentials.

The estate offers a selection of floor plans, most featuring two or three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Because these homes are situated within a green conservation zone, they make an ideal choice for first-homebuyers or those looking to expand their family in the future.

Everton Heights designed and constructed this 12-hectare residential development, situated near schools, shops, transport links and more. CKL provided civil engineering and environmental design services for the project which saw stages 1 and 2 completed by 2022 with phase 3 expected to start in 2023.

CKL has been involved in many significant developments throughout the city, but this marks their first time working on such a large-scale venture.

The estate consists of three and four bedroom townhouses, all with two bathrooms and either single or double lockup garages. These homes boast an amazing outlook, are situated within a green conservation zone, and represent excellent value for money.

Anyone searching for a home in Brisbane's northern suburbs will find this area an ideal option, offering easy access to both the M1 and Airport Link Tunnel as well as Brookside shopping centre. Furthermore, there are excellent public transport options with the closest train station being just five minutes away.

This development marked an important advancement in stormwater management, which was particularly pertinent to this project due to its hillside location and need for innovative solutions that minimized impact on the environment. Various solutions were considered and used, including a tidal pool which captures and retains rainwater during storms.

City of Hamilton

The city has vigorously defended its development contributions policy, which ensures developers contribute some of the capital expenditure needed for sustained growth.

Last week, the High Court determined that HCC did not abuse its discretion when using bedroom numbers and impermeable surface area to calculate stormwater DCs for residential developments. This ruling provides clarity on key matters surrounding how councils calculate and allocate development contributions in New Zealand.

One of the key challenges HCC faced with their policy was how it distributed roading costs among developments within a particular district. Their methodology relied on the Local Government Act (LGA), which states councils can group developments together into "catchments" and make decisions regarding infrastructure cost allocation that balance practicality and administrative efficiency with fairness and equity.

In a separate case, the High Court held that HCC's approach to allocating stormwater and wastewater charges for a particular subdivision did not violate Local Government Ordinance requirements. The applicants had argued that because bedroom numbers weren't an exact representation of stormwater demand at the site, they shouldn't be taken into account when allocating stormwater DCs.

But the judge found that while there was no correlation between bedroom numbers and impermeable surface area at the site, it still generated significant stormwater demand and that council's allocation was fair. Furthermore, they held that LGA regulations regarding infrastructure costs between cities and catchments weren't violated so long as some "catchment" areas weren't significantly larger than others.

The judge held that, for single-story dwellings, it was acceptable to calculate DCs based solely on impermeable surface area as long as there was a reasonable correlation between bedroom numbers and the building footprint.

In response to this story, Hamilton City Council's advance administrator Greg Carstens informed the Narwhal/Star that the developer had appealed the judgment. He noted that while it was a "positive ruling," it wasn't enough for them to move forward with charging in this case - likely costing ratepayers an additional year of acknowledged expenses.