Report to/Rapport au :

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

and Council / et au Conseil

16 September 2004 / le 16 septembre 2004

Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint

Planning and Growth Management / Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

Contact Person/Personne ressource : John L. Moser, Director

Planning and Infrastructure Approvals/Approbation des demandes d'aménagement et d'infrastructure

(613) 580-2424 x 28869, john.moser@ottawa.ca

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2004-DEV-APR-0132

SUBJECT:	ON TIME REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION

OBJET :	MISE EN ŒUVRE DE L'EXAMEN EN TEMPS VOULU

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the On Time Review initiatives to streamline the development review process as detailed in this report and outlined in Documents 1 and 2;

2. Approve the study requirements for selected applications as contained in Document 3;

3. Approve changes to the Circulation to Technical Agencies as detailed in Document 4;

4. Approve an increase to the on-site sign fee to $400, authorize the Department of Planning and Growth Management to charge for additional on-site signs beyond the two-sign minimum, and amend By-law No 2004-160, the Planning Fees By-law accordingly;

5. Approve the implementation of a two-stage process (Draft and Final Approval) for site plan control applications as detailed in Document 5;

6. Approve the establishment of a fee for the two-stage site plan process as detailed in Document 7, and amend By-law No 2004-160, the Planning Fees By-law accordingly;

7. Approve the implementation of a joint site plan control/plan of subdivision process for street townhouses, and an abbreviated site plan control process for street townhouses within a plan of subdivision as detailed in Document 8;

8. Approve the establishment of a fee of $1263 for the abbreviated site plan control process for street townhouses within a plan of subdivision and amend By-law No 2004-160, the Planning Fees By-law accordingly;

9. Approve the establishment of a planning fee of $250 and a legal fee of $250 plus GST for the extension of the time limit for Lifting Part Lot Control.

10. Approve the implementation of an heritage application process including the review of site elements for single family homes in a Heritage Conservation District as detailed in Document 9;

11. Approve the establishment of a fee of $1263 for the heritage application with the review of site elements and amend By-law 2004-160, the Planning Fees By-law accordingly;

12. Approve amendments to the Site Plan Control By-law, By-law Number 2002-4 as detailed in Document 10;

13. Approve the amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law, By-law Number 2001-12 as listed in Document 11;

14. That applicable legal fees to planning approvals be exclusive of all disbursements and that the legal fees pursuant to By-law 2004-160, Schedule H be in accordance with Document 12;

15. Approve the implementation of recommendations 1-14 effective November 1, 2004;

16. Direct the Corporate Services Department to develop and implement an online solution to provide information to the development industry and the community as to the status of applications being processed by the City by June 2005; and

17. Direct the Planning and Growth Management Department to report to City Council by May 2006 providing an update on the On Time Review Initiative.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement recommande au Conseil :

1. d'approuver les projets d'examen en temps voulu destinés à rationaliser l'examen des demandes d'aménagement, dont il est question dans le présent rapport et qui sont énoncés dans les documents 1 et 2;

2. d'approuver les critères d'étude relatifs à certaines demandes, qui sont énoncés dans le document 3;

3. d'approuver les modifications apportées à la diffusion des renseignements aux organismes techniques, qui sont énoncées dans le document 4;

4. d'approuver l'augmentation des droits relatifs aux enseignes sur place (dont le coût passera à 400 $), d'autoriser le Service de l'urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance à percevoir des droits pour les enseignes sur place supplémentaires (au-delà des deux enseignes réglementaires) et de modifier en conséquence le Règlement no 160-2004 concernant les droits de demande d'aménagement;

5. d'approuver la mise en place d'un processus en deux étapes (approbation provisoire et finale) pour l'approbation des demandes de réglementation de plan d'implantation, comme le précise le document 5;

6. d'approuver l'établissement de droits pour le processus d'approbation en deux étapes, comme le précise le document 7, et de modifier en conséquence le Règlement no 160-2004 concernant les droits de demande d'aménagement;

7. d'approuver la mise en place d'un processus combiné de réglementation du plan d'implantation et d'approbation du plan de lotissement pour ce qui concerne les maisons en rangée sur rue, de même qu'un processus abrégé de réglementation du plan d'implantation pour les maisons en rangée sur rue faisant partie d'un plan de lotissement, comme le précise le document 8;

8. d'approuver l'établissement de droits de 1 263 $ pour le processus abrégé de réglementation du plan d'implantation pour les maisons en rangée sur rue faisant partie d'un plan de lotissement, et de modifier en conséquence le Règlement no 160-2004 concernant les droits de demande d'aménagement;

9. d'approuver l'établissement de droits d'aménagement de 250 $ et de frais juridiques de 250 $ plus TPS pour la prolongation des délais dans le cas de la réglementation relative aux parties de lots.

10. d'approuver la mise en place d'un processus d'approbation visant les biens patrimoniaux prévoyant notamment l'examen des éléments de l'emplacement, pour ce qui concerne les maisons unifamiliales dans les districts de conservation du patrimoine, comme le précise le document 9;

11. d'approuver l'établissement de droits de 1 263 $ pour le traitement des demandes visant des biens patrimoniaux et l'examen des éléments de l'emplacement, et de modifier en conséquence le Règlement no 160-2004 concernant les droits de demande d'aménagement;

12. d'approuver les modifications énoncées dans le document 10 concernant le Règlement no 4-2002 sur la réglementation des plans d'implantation;

13. d'approuver les modifications énumérées dans le document 11 concernant le Règlement no 12-2001 sur la délégation de pouvoirs;

14. d'approuver la séparation des droits des frais juridiques liés à l'approbation des demandes d'aménagement et de demander que les frais juridiques exigés en vertu du Règlement 160-2004, annexe H, soient conformes au document 12;

15. d'approuver l'application des recommandations 1 à 14 à compter du 1er novembre 2004;

16. de donner instruction aux Services généraux d'élaborer et d'appliquer d'ici au mois de juin 2005 une solution en ligne pour la communication de renseignements au secteur de l'aménagement et à la population concernant l'état des demandes en voie de traitement;

17. de donner instruction au Service de l'urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance de présenter un rapport au Conseil municipal d'ici au mois de mai 2006 sur le Projet d'examen en temps voulu.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis:

The On Time Review initiative was developed in response to:

1) the Universal Program Review Opportunity Log item aimed at streamlining the development review process; and

2) to continue the implementation of issues identified in the July 2003 Council approved report on the Development Approvals Process - One Year Implementation Review.

An initial On Time Review report was approved by City Council this past spring. That report outlined a range of issues that formed the basis of consultation with a variety of stakeholders.

The premise upon which 'On Time Review' is based is the early identification of the date at which Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) will consider an application. Other modifications to the development review process have been identified in support of the On Time Review Initiative, such as the rationalization of the circulation process, completion of the guidelines for defining a 'complete' application, the development of a two-stage (draft and final) site plan control process, a reduced site plan control process for street townhouses within a plan of subdivision, amendments to the site plan control by-law, additional delegation of authority, and modifications to the heritage process. The report also proposes fee adjustments consistent with the recommended process changes and an increase in the on-site sign fee to support full cost recovery.

The intent of this initiative is to expedite the processing of applications - to address aspects of the process where improvements can be made through streamlining or by taking a different approach. This reflects the disengagement from some reviews where value is not added or a reduction in duplication where existing regulation or other processes protect the public interest.

Financial Implications:

Funds to implement the recommendations in this report will be found within the Planning and Growth Management Department's operating budget. It is anticipated that there will be no net revenue increase as a result of the recommendations in this report. However, these recommendations will offset the shortfall in the on-site sign account.

Public Consultation/Input:

Focus group meetings were held with development industry and community organization representatives on May 19 and 26, 2004 respectively. The meeting with the development industry was held with the Development Industry Liaison Group. Community organization representatives who had enquired or provided input were invited to attend the focus group meeting. In addition, the Federation of Citizens' Associations was invited to send members to the meeting. Staff also met separately with representatives who were unable to attend the focus group sessions.

Advertisements were placed in the Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit on May 21, 2004, describing the On Time Review Initiative and the proposed changes to the development review process, and requesting comments/input. Written comments were received and are incorporated into the consultation details summarized in Document 13.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

Le Projet d’examen en temps voulu :

1. figurait au Registre des occasions dégagées par suite de l’Examen universel des programmes; il a pour but de rationaliser l’examen des demandes d’aménagement;

2. s’inscrit dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des questions soulevées dans le rapport que le Conseil a approuvé en juillet 2003 concernant le processus d’approbation des demandes d’aménagement – Examen de la mise en œuvre après un an.

Le Conseil municipal a approuvé le printemps dernier un rapport initial sur l’examen en temps voulu qui énonçait un certain nombre de questions ayant servi de base aux consultations avec divers intervenants.

L’examen en temps voulu repose sur la détermination hâtive de la date à laquelle le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement étudiera une demande. Le Projet d’examen en temps voulu a donné lieu à l’élaboration d’autres modifications au processus d’examen des demandes d’aménagement, comme la rationalisation de la diffusion des renseignements techniques, l’établissement de lignes directrices permettant de définir en quoi consiste une demande « complète », l’élaboration d’un processus de réglementation en deux étapes (provisoire et finale) du plan d’implantation, l’élaboration d’un processus abrégé de réglementation du plan d’implantation pour les maisons en rangée sur rue faisant partie d’un plan de lotissement et la modification du règlement municipal sur la réglementation des plans d’implantation, la délégation de pouvoirs additionnels et la modification du processus d’approbation des demandes visant des biens patrimoniaux. Le rapport recommande également le rajustement de divers frais et droits en fonction des modifications recommandées aux processus et l’augmentation des droits relatifs aux enseignes sur place, dans une optique de recouvrement intégral des coûts.

Le Projet a pour but d’accélérer le traitement des demandes et de résoudre certains aspects du processus par la rationalisation ou l’adoption d’approches différentes. Il s’agit d’éliminer les examens qui n’apportent aucune valeur ajoutée ou de réduire les doubles emplois lorsque la réglementation existante ou d’autres processus permettent de protéger l’intérêt public.

Répercussions financières :

Les crédits nécessaires à la mise en œuvre des recommandations contenues dans le présent rapport proviendront du budget de fonctionnement du Service. On prévoit que l'application des recommandations ne donnera pas lieu à une augmentation des revenus nets. Elle permettra toutefois de compenser le manque à gagner relatif au compte des enseignes sur place.

Consultation publique / commentaires :

Des réunions de discussion avec les représentants du secteur de l'aménagement et des organismes communautaires se sont déroulées les 19 et 26 mai 2004 respectivement. La première réunion a eu lieu avec les membres du Groupe de liaison avec le secteur de l'aménagement. Les représentants des organismes communautaires qui avaient soumis des demandes de renseignements ou formulé des commentaires ont été invités à la seconde réunion. La Fédération des associations de citoyens a également été invitée à déléguer des représentants à cette réunion. Le personnel a aussi eu des rencontres avec les représentants qui n'avaient pu participer aux deux réunions susmentionnées.

Le 21 mai 2004, la Ville a fait paraître dans l'Ottawa Citizen et Le Droit des annonces qui décrivaient le Projet d'examen en temps voulu ainsi que les modifications proposées au processus d'examen des demandes d'aménagement, et qui sollicitaient des opinions et commentaires. Le résumé des consultations figurant dans le document 12 tient compte des commentaires écrits qui ont été reçus.

BACKGROUND

On April 28, 2004, City Council received the On Time Review Initiative report outlining proposed changes to the development review process, and directed the Department to consult with stakeholders and report to Planning and Environment Committee and Council in June. This report was delayed in response to requests from representatives of community organizations and the development industry that additional time be allowed for more consultation and a thorough analysis of the issues. This report outlines the results of the consultation and detailed recommendations for implementing the proposed changes to the process.

Recommendation 1 - On Time Review

The premise upon which 'On Time Review' is based is the early identification of the date at which Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) will consider an application, combined with streamlining of the circulation and notification process, additional delegation of authority, and modifications to the site plan control process. Following application submission, and once the application has been 'deemed' complete and is ready for circulation, the PEC date will be established. Key strategies for the success of On Time Review are the commitment of staff and the other participants in the process to honour agreed upon timelines (see Document 1). As a result, in the case of Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendments, by Day 98 in the process, the Departmental report will be scheduled on the PEC agenda. The report, as is the case in the present process, will be presented with a recommendation for approval or refusal. A status report will be provided at each PEC meeting outlining the applications that did not achieve their targeted PEC date, provide the reasons why and the expected PEC meeting date at which the application will be considered.

Similarly, with applications for which authority has been delegated to staff, a target date will be identified once the application has been deemed complete and a status report will be provided to PEC for those that did not meet the target date (see Document 2 for examples of the status reports).

The intent of this initiative is to expedite the processing of applications - to speak to those parts of the process where changes can be affected through streamlining or by taking a different approach. This reflects the disengagement from some reviews where value is not added or a reduction in duplication where existing regulation or other processes protect the public interest. As well, financial realities necessitate a drastic reduction of overtime. For example, staff will be in attendance for Community Information and Comment Sessions related to major or contentious applications. While streamlining itself will not result in cost savings, it is anticipated that the implementation of streamlining combined with the additional staff positions approved in the 2004 Budget, will vastly improve timelines.

There is no reason why a full review cannot be made in the allotted time if everyone fulfils their role. In fact, the intent of the initiative is that all stakeholders and staff would commit to meeting input timelines. Staff will pursue concerns raised by agencies/stakeholders within the issue resolution stage, but will move on if comments are not received within the circulation period or early on in the issue resolution stage. This is not a new concept; for instance the Memorandum of Agreement with the Conservation Authorities clearly spells out this concept:

"The Conservation Partners commit to: . . . provide comments within 28 days of a request for comments from the City and receipt of a complete and adequate study from the applicant. If no response is received from the Conservation Authority within the 28-day period, the City will assume that the Conservation Authority does not oppose the application."

The change is that this concept will be applied to all agencies/groups and strictly adhered to.

However, under 'On Time Review', staff will be making decisions without 100% of the comments/input received (under the delegated authority scenario), and similarly that reports to PEC will be prepared without all of the comments/information received. This will mean that 'late arriving' comments will be provided at Planning and Environment Committee and may have to be dealt with outside of a formal report from staff, i.e. through a memorandum to PEC. Also, agencies/groups who did not respond on a timely basis may have to attend PEC and raise their comments/concerns and may have to appeal the Council or delegated staff decisions to the Ontario Municipal Board if issues were not identified within the processing time limits of the applications

The consequences of On Time Review, particularly if information is brought forward at the PEC meeting, is the potential for more debate at PEC, and thus longer meetings as well as the possibility of more appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. However, this is balanced by the processing of applications in a timely and consistent fashion, and by assurances that processing obligations under the Planning Act and Council approved procedures are being met.

Recommendation 2 - Complete Application Study Requirements

It is essential that all information is available to facilitate the meaningful review of an application by staff, community groups, and technical agencies. Incomplete applications will be held until all required information has been submitted. To ensure clarity with the development community, the Department worked with the industry on an initiative to define which studies or reports would be required at what stage in the process. This initiative reflects the study requirements as outlined in the Council Approved Official Plan. Both community organizations and the development industry provided additional comments on the proposed study requirements during the consultation period. These comments are included in the Consultation Details found in Document 13. The study requirements for selected applications attached as Document 3 reflect the staff recommendations which are a balance between the comments provided during consultation, the over-riding authority of the study requirements outlined in the Council Approved Official Plan, as well as the information necessary for staff to conduct a comprehensive review of each application. In some cases, a more detailed explanation has been included in the Notes section to clarify the circumstances under which the studies will be required. In addition, a list of required studies/assessments for the proposed two-stage site plan (draft and final) has been developed including the input from the development industry, and is included in Document 3.

The next step to be completed on the issue of the complete applications is the preparation of Terms of Reference for each study/assessment outlined on the charts in Document 3. This critical work will define the exact requirements for each study/assessment. It is anticipated that the additional work required to develop Terms of Reference based on existing Federal and Provincial guidelines and City policies and standards will be completed throughout 2005.

It should also be noted that the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals has been delegated the authority to request studies in addition to those required as part of a standard submission. This additional material is to be provided by the applicant to assist in resolving any concerns identified through the review of the application.

Once all required studies and reports have been submitted and an application is deemed complete, a date will be set for a Public Meeting at Planning and Environment Committee in the case where Committee/City Council are the approval authority, and the target date set for a decision by staff if the application is delegated to staff.

Recommendation 3 - Circulation

The circulation process is currently divided between a Technical Circulation and a Public Circulation.

The Technical Circulation includes internal City Departments, Provincial Ministries, the Conservation Authority, utilities and other technical groups which provide specialized input, such as the police. The Advisory Committees appointed by the City also form part of this group. Through consultation with these groups, it has been possible to refine the circulation list so that the needs of both the groups being circulated and the Department are satisfied. This review looked at each of the different types of applications to ensure that agencies only receive those for which they have an interest.

For those technical agencies identified to receive the circulation at the beginning of the process, it has been possible to differentiate between those who are required to review and comment on applications, and those that simply need to be made aware of the application. It is recommended that the current technical circulation process continue for those who need to provide comments. All technical agencies which are to be circulated will have established criteria, clearly defining their role in the process. A second more concise package which does not include the large scale plans will be sent to those groups requiring the notice for information purposes. This information circulation will be done electronically. This division of the technical circulation will reduce the number of large scale plans required from the applicant and will reduce the need for the planner to follow up with agencies notified for information purposes.

In consulting the agencies, certain groups have been identified that are interested only in receiving the notice of the decision. These groups will be removed from the initial circulation list and will be added to the notification list later in the process.

Advisory Committees form part of the Technical Circulation. Previously, extensive work had been undertaken with these groups to identify criteria and clarify when they were to receive circulations. In some cases, these criteria have also been refined. Document 4 outlines the recommended changes to the Technical Circulation list.

Public circulation consists predominantly of giving notice to groups such as community associations which have expressed an interest in receiving circulation packages. The City uses an electronic program to identify these groups on a geographic basis. No change is recommended to this current protocol. Within the Public Circulation there are certain groups that have a city-wide interest in specific issues, for example, the Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital. Work is currently underway with these groups to further refine their criteria.

Recommendation 4 - Posting of On-site Sign

When it was initially established, the on-site sign program was operated on a cost-recovery basis. Over time an increasing number of applications have required more than one on-site sign due to the size and location of the subject property; in fact, since 2002, 34% of sites have two signs, a number of sites require more than two signs, and a few require up to six signs. These factors have impacted the Department's ability to recover costs for this program. As a result, it is recommended that the on-site sign fee be increased from $309 to $400, and that the program be limited to a maximum of two signs per property. Should the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch determine that additional on-site signs are required, the signs will be installed, and the applicant will be invoiced for the cost of the additional signs at the rate of $200 per sign.

To effect this change, the Planning Fees By-law will require amendment. At present, the by-law is structured so that the on-site sign fee is included in the planning fee for those applications for which on-site signs are applicable. To make the process of future amendments administratively simpler, and to provide the authority to charge for additional signs beyond the two-sign limit as recommended here, the by-law will require adjustment. The cost of the on-site sign fee will be deducted from the applicable planning fees, and a new section added to list separately the on-site sign fees, the applications to which they are applicable and the provision for charging beyond the two-sign limit. These changes do not affect the fees approved by City Council in the 2004 Budget, but the method in which they are presented in the Planning Fees By-law.

Recommendation 5 and 6 - Two Stage (Draft and Final) Site Plan Control Process

The development of a two-stage (Draft and Final) Site Plan Control process was approved by City Council in July 2003 during consideration of the One-Year Implementation Review of the Development Review Process. This report provides more detail on the proposed process as well as the timelines included in Document 5. The process would work as follows:

· Pre-Application Public Consultation - potential for two-stage process identified at this stage.

· Application Submission - information provided at this stage would be sufficient to process the application (plan of survey, preliminary site plan, landscape plan, site servicing plan, grading and drainage plan), but provided at a higher level or conceptual basis. More detailed studies and reports, such as a Stormwater Management Plan, Traffic Impact Study, Noise Study, roadway modifications, for example, would be finalized at a later stage depending on the complexity of the site and the outcome of public consultation. These final studies/reports would form part of the conditions for final approval. It should be noted that in certain circumstances, additional plans may be required before draft approval can be considered.

· Application Deemed Complete/reviewed for Adequacy

· Community "Heads up" (if required)

· Circulation to Technical Agencies, Community Organizations and Ward Councillor - full 28 day circulation would take place.

· Posting of On-Site Sign

· Community Information and Comment Session (if required)

· Issue Resolution - will revolve around the layout of the site, zoning, landscaping, and the achievement of servicing and transportation issues without final details, but through the creation of realistic conditions and a clear understanding that issues are resolvable.

· Delegated Authority Report Preparation with Draft Conditions - Document 6 includes a list of the typical issues that might be included as draft conditions.

· Concurrence by Ward Councillor and Applicant - draft conditions would require the concurrence of both the Ward Councillor and the applicant with the knowledge that issues either have been resolved, or will be resolved through the draft conditions.

· Draft Approval - issued by Day 60

Final Approval - the second or final stage of this approval would be similar to the final approval stage of subdivision approval in which the draft conditions are 'cleared' before final approval is granted. It is important to note that no building permits would be issued until final approval is received. Depending on the nature of changes made following draft approval, the application may have to be recirculated with a revision application. Significant changes in stormwater management pond sizing, slope stability findings that set limits on development, and significant roadway modifications affecting entrances, for example, would require that a revision application be submitted. This would necessitate a new concurrence from the Ward Councillor and applicant to any revised conditions. However, unless revisions are made to necessitate a new application, the Ward Councillor will not review the application again. Once concurrence is provided for draft conditions, the conditions will be cleared and final approval provided by staff.

In terms of fees for the two-stage process, it is recommended that the fee structure be established similar to that of the subdivision process, with an initial fee and a subsequent, or final fee. The total fee will be split so that the larger percentage of the planning fee is collected at application while the balance of the planning fee and legal fee will be collected prior to final approval. The current and recommended two-stage fees are detailed in Document 7.

Recommendation 7 and 8 - Joint Site Plan/Plan of Subdivision Process for Street Townhouses

The Branch is proposing two possible scenarios under which site plan control applications for street townhouses would be processed (Document 8). In the first scenario, a joint site plan/subdivision process would be utilized. In this case, when the developer and builder are the same, and the applicant is able to provide all information up-front at the subdivision application stage, site plan control would be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision.

If the information is all provided up-front as part of the joint site plan/subdivision application, it is recommended that the fee charged would be consistent with the approved fee of $1263 for a site plan application with Assigned Planner delegated approval. It should be noted that for multiple applications a 10% discount is applied to the planning application fees.

Under the second scenario, a site plan control application would be submitted for street townhouses within a plan of subdivision. This application would be used when the subdivision recently has been approved (within two years), with full public consultation taking place at that time. The reduced site plan process would include the same submission requirements as in the joint site plan/subdivision process, but approval authority would be delegated to the Program Manager(s) of Development Approvals. The fee charged would be consistent with the approved fee of $1263 for a site plan application with Assigned Planner delegated approval.

Recommendation 9 - Extension of the Time Limit for Lifting Part Lot Control

There is a time limit associated with the by-law required to implement the lifting of Part Lot Control that usually gives the owner a maximum of two years from the registration of the Part Lot Control by-law to the registration of the properties. If the owner anticipates that this time limit may be exceeded, they may apply to have it extended. When the harmonized fees for planning applications were introduced in 2001 there was no specific fee created to cover the process for extending this time limit. The process involved is minor in nature, in that Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch staff review and approve the extension and then Legal Services enacts a new by-law to extend the time limit. It is anticipated that the proposed planning fee of $250 and legal fee of $250 plus GST will cover the work required to process an application to extend the time limit.

Recommendation 10 and 11 - Heritage Application Process with review of site elements

In the original report used for consultation purposes, it was suggested that single-family houses within a Heritage Conservation District be exempt from site plan control. Through discussion with the various stakeholders there was general support for some modification of the site plan control process in combination with the existing heritage application. This would allow for the additional attention to trees and significant landscaping features that are essential elements of the Heritage Conservation Districts in Ottawa, while at the same time reducing the time required for a full site plan process and minimizing the costs.

The Department is proposing that the Heritage application process be modified to include a review of site elements that would be delegated to the Assigned Heritage Planner for approval. The process is detailed in Document 9. This expanded Heritage process would be applicable to the site elements related to new single family dwellings, additions/alterations to single family dwellings that equal or exceed one-third of the size of the floor area or 55 square metres of the original building, and additions to a single-family dwelling that visually impacts the building elevation fronting onto a public or private street. There is currently no cost for the submission of a heritage application, but the recommended fee for the expanded heritage application with review of site elements would be consistent with the approved fee of $1263 for a site plan application with Assigned Planner delegated approval.

Site element issues would be managed through a Letter of Undertaking.

Recommendation 12 - Site Plan Control By-law Amendments

The Department has identified amendments to the Site Plan Control By-law that would also improve timelines and streamline the site plan control process (Document 10). The first is the potential for the expansion of the criteria for, and the increased use of Letters of Undertaking as opposed to the use of Agreements. Letters of Undertaking are used for less complex applications where there is no need to have the agreement registered on title, for example, where there are no easements or conveyances to the City, no special measures to be taken to protect trees, and where the amount of securities is relatively small. One of the criteria for the use of a Letter of Undertaking is that the total amount of securities to be provided to the City does not exceed $5,000. Given the increasing cost of hard and soft landscaping work, it is recommended that this amount be increased to $50,000. In addition, it is proposed that the criteria for the use of Letters of Undertaking be expanded to include any rural development not on public water or sewer services that meets other existing criteria for a Letter of Undertaking.

The second aspect is the review of additional types of development that could be exempt from site plan control approval. Consideration was given to classes of development that pose very limited risk as they are straightforward in nature and the Department rarely receives significant comments or input from the community or commenting agencies in relation to them, as well as those for which there are limited opportunities to add value from the staff's perspective. The following lists the proposed additional classes of development to be exempt from site plan control approval:

· A triplex dwelling or accessory building or structure

· Extend the exemption for accessory buildings and additions from 100m² to 200m² - at the present time, accessory buildings and additions are exempt from site plan control approval if they are 100m² in size

· Pumping station, utility installation, communication tower

· A community building in a park

· An alteration that results in a change in use, providing that no more than 10 additional parking spaces are required on the lot

· An alteration that results in a change in use, providing that no more than 10 additional parking spaces are established on the lot

· Portable classrooms

· Additions to street townhouses

In addition, for changes to a development that has received site plan approval, it is proposed that if the deviation from the dimension for the location of buildings or structures is less than 1.0 metres and does not result in a violation of any by-law, that no further approval be required. Currently, the by-law states that the permitted deviation is .5 metres.

An additional amendment to the Site Plan Control By-law is required to clarify the wording related to the exemption of farm buildings less than 5000m² from site plan control. The by-law currently refers to "a building or structure used for agriculture and forestry uses", which seems to suggest that the building must be used for both agriculture and forestry at the same time. This was not the intent. It is proposed that the by-law be re-written to say "a building or structure used for agricultural uses or forestry uses."

Recommendation 13 - Amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law

The original premise behind the establishment of the development review process was the delegation to staff of as much authority as is permitted under the Planning Act, with a mechanism in place for this delegation to be lifted when necessary, as well as accountability measures. Initially, much of the delegation of authority was vested in the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals until appropriate administrative processes and mechanisms to ensure accountability were established. In the past year, City Council approved further delegation for lifting 30 cm. reserves, part lot control, lifting of holding zones and the release of financial securities from the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to the Branch Managers. With this additional delegation working well, it is appropriate to continue to delegate authority further down into the Branch. This recommendation is to assign the remaining authority currently delegated to the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals down to the Manager(s) and Program Manager(s) of Development Approvals. This would result in delegation of authority for the approval of draft plan of subdivision, site plan control, cash-in-lieu of parking, and cash-in-lieu of parkland being vested in the Manager(s) of Development Approvals, and the delegation of authority for the approval of draft plan of condominium, road closure and road opening, lifting 30 cm. reserves, part lot control and site plan control for street townhouses being vested in the Program Manager(s) of Development Approvals.

In a similar vein, it is recommended that the delegation of authority to Assigned Planners for site plan control be expanded to include:

· Extensions of site plan agreements from six months to one year

· Extension of time to obtain building permit from six months to one year

· An increase from 100m² to 200m² as the point for which approval is delegated to the Assigned Planner

These proposals to extend delegated authority do not change the nature of the staff role in relation to Councillors. Ward Councillors will continue to be circulated and advised of applications, and will have the opportunity to provide comments that will be considered as part of the application review.

Under the current Delegation of Authority By-law, staff have been delegated the authority to approve site plan applications, but have no authority to refuse them. Reports recommending refusal must be considered by PEC. The Department is recommending that the by-law be amended to add 'refusal' to the authority delegated to staff. The concurrence of the Ward Councillor would of course be required.

Recommendation 14 - Legal Fees Changes

With the registration of each agreement or conveyance, disbursements are payable to Terranet, the agency response for electronic registrations or to the province, in the case of documents registered in paper form. The applicable fees include the applicable registration cost, searches to ensure that no mortgages or other claims are registered against title that would have priority to the City’s interest and fees for names changes to reflect amalgamation.

These fees vary according to the circumstances surrounding the developer in question and the title history to the parcel. Where the disbursements are directly billed, the developer is not required to pay the Goods and Services Tax, whereas where they are included within an overall fee, G.S.T. must be collected upon that overall amount.

It is recommended that the disbursements be directly collected by Legal Services. Such will reflect an increase in revenue to the City of approximately $85 per transaction. To offset a portion of this increase, it is further recommended that in the instance of most fees, the amount payable be decreased by $50 per transaction. The revised amount of the fees, as decreased by the $50 amount, are attached as Document 12

Recommendation 15 - Effective Date for Implementation

Procedures, application forms and by-laws have been prepared so that with City Council approval of the recommendations in this report, the changes can be implemented effective November 1, 2004. Once approved, the required changes to the Municipal Applications Partnership (MAP) and the City website will also be effected to reflect the new or revised processes and the related approved fees.

Recommendation 16 - On-line Access

The Department consulted with Corporate Services Department about the possibility of providing on-line access to applicants to check the status of their application, and to community groups and the public to identify new applications in their neighbourhood as well as the status of existing applications. While the technology is available, the Department is working to resolve Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act issues before implementing this initiative. It is anticipated that once all issues are resolved, on-line access will be in place by June 2005.

It is expected that by year-end, once logistical details are resolved, copies of reports and studies submitted by applicants in support of their application, will be posted on the City's website for review by those stakeholders interested in the information.

CONSULTATION

Consultation on the On Time Review Initiative and the proposed changes to the development review process is detailed in Document 13.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 - On Time Review - A New Approach

Document 2 - On Time Review Status Reports

Document 3 - Study Requirements by Application Type

Document 4 - Technical Circulation List

Document 5 - Two-Stage (Draft and Final) Site Plan Control Process

Document 6 - Possible Issues for Draft Conditions - Two-stage Site Plan Control Process

Document 7 - Fees for Site Plan Control Applications

Document 8 - Site Plan Control Process for Street Townhouses

Document 9 - Heritage Application Process with Review of Site Elements

Document 10 - Amendments to the Site Plan Control By-law

Document 11 - Amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law

Document 12 - Schedule H - By-law 2004-160

Document 13 - Consultation Details

DISPOSITION

Planning and Growth Management Department to amend procedures, application forms, fee summaries, work with Information Technology to change MAP, and liaise with the Client Service Centres as required to implement Recommendations 1-14.

Legal Services to prepare amendments to the Planning Fees By-law No 2004-160 to implement Recommendations 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 14, and amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law to implement Recommendation 13.

Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare amendments to the Site Plan Control By-law to implement Recommendation 12.

TECHNICAL CIRCULATION LIST Document 4

This Document provides an outline of the groups and agencies proposed to be circulated for Official Plan, Zoning By-law amendments, subdivision and site plan approval. These applications are shown for illustrative purposes. All other forms of development applications have also been reviewed. Through the review, the needs of the different groups have been analyzed and the requirements rationalized. New criteria have been created wherever a group is identified as being elective.

Internal Technical Review

Department	Branch/Division	Official Plan	Zoning	Subdivision	Site Plan	Criteria
Council	Councillor	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
Planning and Growth Management	Planning Approvals (3)	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
	Infrastructure Approvals (includes Public Works and Services)	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
	Urban Design & Area Planning	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
	Development Information Officer	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
	Heritage	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Properties with heritage designations, buildings or sites
	Environmental Management	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
	Zoning Study Team		Mandatory
	Policy Planning (2)	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Official Plan amendments to the new OP and all applications in Central area
	Transportation Policy and Funding	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications abutting major arterial roadways, rapid transit stations and corridors, and potential bridge crossings
	Building		Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
	Mapping & Graphics			Mandatory		Maintain GIS database
	Economic Development	Elective	Elective	Elective		Applications which affect employment lands
Community and Protective Services	Fire			Mandatory	Mandatory
	Ottawa Police	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
	Housing		Elective			Applications which affect the residential supply
	Parks & Recreation	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
	Public Health	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Review possible public health issues
Public Works and Services	Utility Services Branch, Environmental Programs (Solid Waste)				Elective	Applications relating to waste handling, transfer, recycling or disposal
	OC Transpo	Elective		Mandatory	Elective	Circulation based upon accessibility to transit
Corporate Services	Legal	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Review possible city legal issues
	Real Estate Services	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Review when related to city owned lands
	Information Technology Services, Surveys			Mandatory	Mandatory	Review survey plan
Advisory Committees	Accessibility Advisory Committee				Elective	Review for public accessibility based upon criteria from committee
	Environmental Advisory Committee	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Committee screens applications for comment
	Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Properties with heritage designations, buildings or sites
	Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Circulated based upon detailed criteria established by Committee

External Technical Review

Agency	Official Plan	Zoning	Subdivision	Site Plan	Criteria
Telecoms (8)	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
Hydro (2)	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
Gas	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
School Boards (4)	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
Municipal Property Assessment	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory
Conservation Authority	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory	Mandatory (Director approval with public consultation)
TransCanada Pipeline & Trans Northern Pipeline	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications with proximity to pipelines
Ontario Power Generation	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Within service area (portion of West Carleton only)
Railway	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications with proximity to rail lines
Adjacent Municipality	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications within 1 km of border
National Capital Commission	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications relating to Federal land holdings and interests
Parks Canada	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications abutting Rideau waterways
Canada Post	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications requiring new delivery service
Airport Authority	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications within influence zone
Ministry of Transport	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications in proximity to highways
Ministry of Natural Resources	Elective	Elective	Elective	Elective	Applications relating to pits and quarries

Public Circulation

Public circulation involves providing a package of information to those community groups that are registered with the Department to receive such information. These groups include local community and religious organizations as well as citywide groups such as the Greenspace Alliance and Heritage Ottawa. The current circulation practice relating to these groups will not change.

Number of Plans Required

	Official Plan	Zoning	Subdivision	Site Plan
Mandatory	34	35	45	43
Elective*	25	26	21	24
Public**	5	5	5	5
Total	64	66	71	72
Recommended Total***	45	45	55	55

* This number of plans represents the maximum number required if all elective groups are to be circulated.

** Public circulation includes a different number of groups each time based upon the number of registered associations within a specific area. Generally, this number does not exceed five.

*** It is recommended that the total number of plans required for submission include the requirements for all mandatory agency, approximately 25% of elective agencies, and approximately 5 for public consultation.

CONSULTATION DETAILS Document 13

Advertisements were placed in the Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit on May 21, 2004, describing the On Time Review Initiative and the proposed changes to the development review process and requesting comments/input. Written comments were received and are incorporated into the summary that follows.

The following provides a summary of the comments received by topic and group:

Public/Advisory Groups/Community Organization Comments

On Time Review Initiative

· Phone calls not returned

· Circulations not received early enough – often received after the comment date [from Advisory Group representative]

· Often do not receive additional studies when requested

General availability of traffic and other impact studies

· Material is not all available at Client Service Centres (CSCs)

· Practice should be to make information available/share with community associations

· Suggest advisory groups be added to ‘heads-up’

· Need for ‘Out of office’ protocol for phones/e-mails

· Ottawa Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee (OFGAC) use CSCs as delivery centre to pick up circulations, reduction to one day per week in rural area eats into the 28-day turnaround time

· Can libraries be used as pick-up locations?

· Should be recognition of difficulties in meeting the 28-day turnaround time

· More predictable scheduling is commendable.

· Concept of setting a time-table (14 weeks for Official Plan and Zoning amendments) may appear to offer efficiencies to the process

· This could lead to decisions being made before all relevant input has been considered

· Relevant studies/documentation missing or not available

· Site visits are an important part of the process

· Closing of City Resource Centre makes research on a site difficult

· Environmental components often overshadowed by other technical aspects

· Some staff not well-versed in environmental issues and cannot comprehend "the environmental problems"

· Conservation Authority staff not always familiar with the city and do not always make site visits

· Conservation Authority staff sometimes seems to accept consultant reports at face value with no independent analysis or response to citizen concerns

Departmental Response

The Branch continues to improve its approach to customer service, however, specific situations of lengthy or lack of responses should be brought to the attention of the Director.

The Branch checked with the Advisory Coordinator for the OFGAC, who confirmed that while there were some occurrences of circulations received late during 2003, improvements have been noted this year.

There is no difficulty in adding advisory groups to the 'heads up' process. The OFGAC has recently been added to this process.

The reduction in operation of the rural Client Service Centres was a decision made during the 2004 Budget deliberations.

Assigned Planners do conduct site visits for all applications.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governs the City’s relationship with the Conservation Authorities and the level and nature of the review provided. Specific cases of concern should be brought to the attention of the Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals who will determine if the MOU is being followed.

Pre-Application Public Consultation

· Can we have pre-consultation universal and mandatory?

· Community groups would like to countersign to confirm that pre-consultation took place

· Suggest that applicants be provided with an overview of the community in which they are proposing to develop which would assist them in understanding the community vision

· Environmental impact assessments should be identified at this time – put on website as a table – this puts onus on the person providing comments

· In our experience, when sufficient information and response to community concerns are reflected in what is presented to Council, it is because the applicant has chosen to do so. Staff should play an active role in compensating for an applicant's failure to consult with stakeholders, and arrange for the release of all documents and for public consultation whenever an applicant has not done it. Instead, staff often comply with an applicant's wishes that consultation be held to the minimum legal requirements, which are very low. The only recourse is the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) whose consultation requirements are extremely high.

· Suggest a ward-level consultation process would be more effective, less formal, and would deal with issues that all participants are more familiar with. It could reduce the need for public meetings and long PEC sessions while make more effective use of everyone's time, and could be used for both delegated and non-delegated approvals.

· Suggest penalties for applicants who do not pre-consult.

· Suggest letter be sent from Mayor/Councillors to encourage groups to register for the Department's Public Notification List

Departmental Response

There is no mandatory requirement for proponents to pre-consult with community groups or Ward Councillors. While all staff actively promote pre-consultation, it cannot be required prior to application submission. By the same token, penalties cannot be imposed for a voluntary part of the process that occurs in advance of application submission.

In terms of consultation, staff follows the Council approved Public Notification and Consultation Policy, which provides for enhanced consultation beyond what is mandated under the Planning Act.

On an annual basis, the Branch places newspaper advertisements and mails letters to groups encouraging them to register for the Department's Public Notification List. Information is also available on the City's website.

Delegation of Authority

· Criteria for delegation of authority – some not happy with original decision on this issue

· Concern expressed about delegation of authority related to National Capital Commission (NCC) lands (issue of H zones) and that delegation of authority should not apply to these lands because a public process is needed due to the greenspace

· Delegation to staff not proven effective in relation to environmental aspects of site review

· Concern with the combination of reduction of public consultation with increase in delegated authority to staff.

· There is no mechanism to verify that comments/input are adequately represented - some would like to see reports posted on the website when it is sent to the Ward Councillor for concurrence.

· Would like planners to check with person who provided comments to see that comments are understood - this is only an issue with delegated authority reports, as the person can appear if the report goes to Committee

· Response to comments should be provided

Departmental Response

The proposed changes to Delegation of Authority are not intended to increase the amount of authority delegated - in fact, nothing is proposed to change in this regard. What is suggested, rather, is that authority be delegated further down into the organization. The same accountability will exist that is in place currently, and the same process will continue for the 'lifting' of delegated authority. The result will be improved efficiencies, reduced timelines and continued accountability.

Concern was expressed about the delegation of authority related to the lifting of ‘H’ zones on NCC lands. The lifting of these ‘H’ zones would occur as a result of a study, site plan control or re-zoning. Each of these processes is public, so opportunities would exist for public comment on any such proposal. For example, while the lifting of the ‘H’ zone may be approved through delegated authority, it is most likely that the ‘H’ would be lifted concurrently with the approval of a site plan application or a re-zoning application.

Due to the volume of comments received by planners, there is no opportunity to provide individual responses. Specific concerns about the misrepresentation of comments should be brought to the attention of the Director. It is not possible for reports to be placed on the website before they have been signed off.

Online Access to Information

· Applications listed by Ward on website would be useful

· More should be done electronically, both internally and externally

· Suggest information be placed on a separate website and people be notified electronically that the information is available and has been posted

· Can reports be provided in ‘soft’ format to make them more accessible?

· Suggest incentives be offered to developers to do more electronically

· Difficult to locate Handbook on City website - can this be improved?

Departmental Response

The Branch has confirmed the possibility of adding 'soft' copies of studies to the website, and anticipates that this will be up and running by year-end.

The concept of providing information and the status of development applications is also being pursued. While the technology is available, the Department is working to resolve Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) issues before implementing this initiative. It is anticipated that this access will be in place by June 2005.

Notification and Circulation

· Need to re-examine the criteria for circulation to Environmental Management staff, as they often seem unaware

· Concern about quality of studies i.e. Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) are often deficient, incomplete and inaccurate

· Staff do not seem to have the expertise to know that studies are deficient

· Conservation Authorities are now reviewing these studies - there is a concern that they are 'rubberstamping' them and not peer-reviewing them

· How well is the Memorandum of Understanding with the Conservation Authorities working?

· Are the Conservation Authorities making site visits?

· Issue of 'scoped' EIS

· Is there an approved format for an EIS?

· Provide summary to telecoms and indicate that plans are available for review at office

· Technical agencies should be sent an electronic version

· Why is NCC under elective rather than required based on criteria?

· Endangered species should be added to Conservation Authorities under rationale/criteria

· Would not like to see ads in community newspapers reduced or discontinued

· City should advertise in weeklies on a regular basis

· 28-day comment period is difficult for Community Associations to achieve

· Need to ensure the 'No Response' is used after 28 days rather than assumed agreement

· Perception is that planning staff do not do site visits

· No third level of review of studies/reports especially environmental impact assessments

· Quality of reports not up to speed

· Same issue applies to traffic studies

· Need to evaluate the work of the consultants

· Who will evaluate noise studies?

· Concern about conflict of interest when the consultant who does work for the developer is the same one who defined the concept and requirements for the City in the first place

· Situation where after consultation, the applicant revises the plan, and the stakeholders are not advised – sometimes the comments in the report to PEC are from the initial consultation and do not reflect the revised plans – should the plan have been re-circulated?

· Forestry people should be added to list

· By-law Enforcement should be circulated on issues related to Noise Impacts

Stationary noise (car dealership, restaurant)

· Part of review process

· Not an enforcement issue

· Problem is that noise is not assessed at development stage

· Mixed use development will be an issue and intensification will suffer if noise isn’t dealt with

Departmental Response

The Branch follows a peer review model for reports and studies, and in cases where the expertise is not available in-house to review these reports, outside consultants are used for peer review. The Departmental recommendations are based on the professional opinion of staff and relevant rationale supporting the recommendation is included in each report.

Groups unable to provide an immediate response could send an interim response and indicate when the final response will be provided.

Ads in community newspaper still remain part of the process, at the discretion of the assigned planner.

The Branch has undertaken a major review of those on the notification list, both internally and externally. Those on the technical circulation list were contacted or meetings were held to determine their specific interests in being circulated applications. Document 4 (attached) includes the revised circulation list.

The Branch follows approved guidelines for stationary noise in the review of development applications and imposes conditions to deal with these issues where warranted.

Application Deemed Complete/Reviewed for Adequacy

· Need to require assessment of cumulative environmental impact

· Federation of Citizens’ Associations (FCA) – view is that Zoning and Site Plan, and Subdivision and Zoning applications should be required to be brought forward jointly to produce better decision-making because if combined, applications would move more smoothly through PEC

· If zoning is not accompanied by subdivision or site plan, then a concept plan should be required

· There should be a size limit (number of units) as the requirement for a traffic/transportation study.

· Concern that if reports/studies are required at the review stage, they will not be available for circulation - would prefer to see all studies/reports required at submission for the application to be deemed complete.

· Need to understand how assessment is made as to whether reports/studies are required or may be required.

· Specific comments relating to the studies and report required can be found at the end of the consultation section

Departmental Response

Document 3 indicates which reports/studies are required at the submission stage. It is impractical to require all reports/studies up front given the number of reviewing and commenting agencies who may request significant revisions. As a result, some reports/studies are required at the review stage after the comments have been provided.

Two Stage Site Plan

· Some thought this was a logical move

· OFGAC representative expressed concern about tree protection

· Concern expressed that community groups have not been receiving a copy of the decision

Departmental Response

In response to the concern expressed about groups not receiving a copy of the site plan control delegated authority decision, the procedures have been reviewed, clarified and tightened up to ensure that all interested stakeholders are advised of the decision on any particular application.

Site Plan By-law Amendments

· Concern that with a move from agreement to letters of undertaking, there is no enforcement possible

· ‘Extend the exemption for accessory buildings or structure accessory hereto’ – concern about impacts on trees and inability to meet Kyoto Accord.

· There should be no exemption of communications towers because of a concern about the adequacy of Federal guidelines on emissions, especially near schools. Therefore, the community should have a say

· There should be no exemption for community buildings in parks because of the concern about saving trees and the interest of the community

· Trees are a statement of reason in a least two Heritage Conservation Districts – concern that if site plan control is discontinued, trees may be lost.

· Rockliffe Park Heritage is based on streetscaping and trees, etc, and not so much on architecture. As a result, the only opportunity to look at these issues is through site plan control.

· The current site plan process is onerous and costly. A move to consolidate a reduced site plan process with the Heritage application by requesting the existing and proposed landscaping plan would be workable

· Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) members support the proposal to maintain a stripped-down version of site plan review for single detached units in the Rockcliffe Park heritage district.

· LACAC requests that the same review process be applied to all the other heritage districts in the City.

· Concern that site plan control has incurred burdens of cost and time that are out of proportion to the needs of heritage district management.

· For heritage district management review, only a simple plan is required that shows the position of existing & proposed structures and significant landscape features such as grading, trees, driveways, pools, and terraces. Such a plan would not need the extensive circulation list now used for all site plan applications.

· Suggest a stripped-down version of site plan requirements be developed that is tailored to the specific requirements of heritage district management.

· For buildings protected under Part IV or Part V of the Heritage Act, LACAC could be given delegated authority to approve site plans.

· Site plan control should probably be retained for buildings adjacent to heritage buildings, as the new OP seems to say, and a separate process for buildings on the heritage reference list should be considered whereby a variety of approval applications, not just demolition, would trigger a rapid evaluation for designation under the Act.

· OFGAC would like to be consulted on tree issues in Heritage districts

· The removal of site plan control of certain types of projects where the only possibly controversial aspect is one where the policy direction has already been established, like the addition of one unit to a row of street townhouses, the treatment of a triplex under the same rules as a duplex, the addition of a second storey to a one-storey building, the treatment of small additions, only require some study to ensure that appropriate exceptions are still handled through this or some other process.

Departmental Response

It is correct that there is no enforcement possible when a letter of undertaking is used, as opposed to an agreement. It is for this reason that letters of undertaking are used only in specified situations where the potential risk is quite limited.

It should be noted that the City does not currently have the ability to protect trees on private property.

The rationale for the proposed exemption of portable classrooms is that site plan applications for new schools are now being submitted with future portable classrooms included. As a result, the Department cannot add much value in reviewing them again.

There was considerable discussion about the value of a modified or 'stripped down' site plan process for single-family homes within a Heritage Conservation District. As a result, the Branch has developed a heritage application process with review of site elements specifically for these areas.

Legal Services Branch has confirmed that under the Planning Act, City Council can only delegate authority to a Committee of Council or staff. As a result, site plan control approval cannot be delegated to LACAC.

The conditions under which OFGAC review applications have been amended to include tree issues in Heritage Conservation Districts.

Post-Approval Process

Would like the public to be more involved following draft approval and pending completion of studies, for example, traffic studies

If there are significant changes to a subdivision after Draft Approval is granted, such as a 10% increase in density, it should be re-circulated to the community

Subdivisions and site plans are never final - there are revisions and significant changes after consultation has been completed that should be taken back to the community

The two-stage approval process does not take into account community or environmental concerns

Departmental Response

There are criteria in place for revisions to subdivision and site plans. Significant changes to a subdivision such as creating new roads require re-circulation, and a revision fee must be paid.

The assigned planner has been delegated authority to approve minor modifications to site plan control approval. The criteria includes:

· addition, deletion or relocation of accessory buildings or structures, utility equipment, garbage enclosures, landscape elements, decks, swimming pools, lighting, signs or portable classrooms;

· modifications to internal pedestrian or vehicular circulation, parking and loading areas or building footprint which represent a change of less than 100 square metres in gross floor area (proposed to be changed to 200 square metres);

· extensions of less than six months to the time limit to sign a site plan control agreement or a letter of undertaking, if the extension is requested prior to the lapse of the original time limit (proposed to be increased to less than one year);

· an extension of less than six months to the time limit to obtain a Building Permit, if the extension is requested prior to the lapse of the original time limit (proposed to be increased to less than one year).

For changes beyond these criteria a revision application would be required.

Opportunities for public consultation and involvement occur up-front in the development approval process. This consultation, coupled with the review of professional staff, provides the basis for the conditions upon which draft approval is granted, in the case of draft plan of subdivision approval, and similarly, in the case of the two-stage (draft and final) approval of site plan process proposed in this report. In either case, final approval is not granted until all conditions have been cleared.

On-Site Signs

· Concern expressed about the limit of two on-site signs. For large developments, this is completely inadequate.

Departmental Response

In response to the concern about the two-sign limit, if additional signs are required, the cost of these additional signs will be invoiced to the applicant.

Mediation

· A true, objective, mediation process would be highly desirable

· Community willing to work with City to develop such a process.

· The OMB hearing and mediation processes are increasingly making up for deficiencies in the approval process - staff is compelled to provide information to all parties, to evaluate different positions, and can be questioned

· Great idea, but no money!

Departmental Response

Mediation is a worthwhile objective to pursue. The Department will monitor the number of appeals to the OMB and will consider the pursuit of mediation in the future.

Site Plan Control for Street Townhouses

· In some cases, the approval of a plan of subdivision and of a site plan could be combined.

· No issue about reduced site plan control process for street towns

· If we could be sure that the subdivision comment process was adequate, this would be OK, but with shortened timelines, the subdivision (and hence the townhouse) process is flawed

Departmental Response

Notwithstanding this comment about the subdivision process, the Department feels the process of site plan control for street townhouses is worth pursuing.

Attendance at Public Meetings

· Concern that planners cannot hold or attend more than 4 public consultation meetings per ward per year.

· If council is going to delegate more authority to staff, then staff must absolutely find the processes whereby the public's input is sought out and listened to.

Departmental Response

There is no additional delegation of authority to staff; just authority delegated to the most appropriate staff level in the Branch. Existing opportunities for public input and comment will continue. Staff will continue to attend Public Information and Comment Sessions where the proposed development is a major one or is controversial. Staff will continue to seek and listen to input from the public.

Development Industry Comments

Delegated Authority

· Gains made in timelines negated with lifting of delegated authority

· Triggers at which delegation can be lifted

· Point at which delegated authority lifted

Departmental Response

There are very few situations in which delegation of authority is 'lifted'. In 2003, there were only seven site plan applications for which authority was 'lifted' that were considered by Planning and Environment Committee, out of over 250 applications for which decision were made.

Two-Stage Site Plan Process

· There are aspects of site plan that are not about to happen and that could be left to resolve in the final stage

· Need to clarify the level of detail required for ‘draft’ approval

Departmental Response

The Branch has developed details in terms of the level of detail required for a 'draft' approval, based on the premise that there are issues that are not immediate and that can be resolved in the final stage of approval. Such issues will be included as conditions. These items are detailed in Document 6.

The possibility of a three-stage site plan process could be considered as part of the eighteen-month review of the On Time Review Initiative. This time period will allow the Branch and stakeholders to observe how well the two-stage process is working and whether consideration of a three-stage process is feasible or possible.

Subdivision/Site Plan

· Go back to generic draft conditions

· All encompassing

· Outside agencies

· Wrap up all issues as a blanket to let everyone move on

· Utilities – develop a standard condition with no sign-off such as ”developer will ensure adequate servicing for heating, electricity, cable and telephone to the satisfaction of the Director, PIA…”

· Draft subdivision plan – include other related applications such as 100 cm

· reserve, part lot control

· Process at same time

· Circulate at the same time

Departmental Response

Then Branch has worked with technical agencies to resolve circulation issues and to develop standard wording for conditions that are common. Work has also been completed on the review and rationalization of both the subdivision and site plan standard agreements and conditions. These will be included in a report for the consideration of Committee on November 9, 2004. These improvements will contribute to the efficiency of the agreement process.

The Branch has reviewed application forms and has combined those that can reasonably be combined as is suggested. Wherever possible, these applications will be processed concurrently rather than consecutively.

On Time Review

· Make it clear in report what the process is for each if the two streams – delegated and non-delegated. For example, how the rules apply? What will happen? Use specific examples

· How will those on the circulation list that have not responded be handled?

· Suggest including a monitoring recommendation in report – to report back in 18 months

Departmental Response

Examples of how both applications under delegated authority and those that require Committee and Council approval have been included in the body of the report. For those issues for which a response has not been received within the circulation period, decision will be made based on the information that exists. It is anticipated that decisions will be made with the majority of the comments/input received for reports under delegated authority, and alternatively that a report will be prepared for Committee with the majority of information received and the balance provided at the Committee meeting.

Recommendation 17 reflects the monitoring suggestion as presented.

Site Plans for Street Towns

· If doing as a subdivision as a block

· Give details

· Easements, etc.

· There is no reason that landscaping, driveways, easements could not be included on the subdivision application

· File at same time

· Suggest a separate schedule that indicates site plan conditions included in the subdivision agreement

· Subdivision and site plan on one agreement

· ‘Combo’ agreement at the developer’s option – either combined or separate agreement

Departmental Response

Agreed - The Branch has developed a combined process as detailed in Document 8, and is finalizing the 'combo' site plan/subdivision agreement for consideration by Committee and Council on November 9, 2004.

Site Plan Control By-law Amendments

· For the following proposal,

“Any deviation…does not exceed 1.0 m and does not result in a violation of any by-law.”

Would prefer this to be more open such as…

“Any deviation…that does not result in a violation of any zoning by-law” – could be delegated to the Assigned Planner for approval

· Suggest that site plan for singles in a Heritage Conservation District be made part of the heritage application

Departmental Response

Consideration was given to the deviation proposed by the industry, but the Branch has been advised that more clarity is required in by-laws.

The heritage application process with review of site elements is detailed in Document 9.

Summary of Comments on Study Requirements for Selected Applications

Public/Advisory Groups/Community Organization Comments

Official Plan Amendment - Required Studies and Assessments

· Item 10 - Do trees in a Heritage Conservation District fit into this study?

· Items 13 – Concept Plan and 14 – Urban Design Study should be required at submission rather than at the review stage

· The Official Plan reference for item 15 – Environmental Impact Statement should also include endangered species, and should be mandatory

· Market Feasibility and Impact Study should be requested

· Note # 9, last sentence should be changed to read “A Noise Study will be required for a commercial use if the proposed development is adjacent to an existing or proposed stationary noise source.”

· What about issues related to trees/forests?

· Note # 15 - forest mentioned in note, but not reflected on chart, and there is no mention of Rural Natural Features

Rural Zoning By-law Amendment - Required Studies and Assessments

· Item 15 - Environmental Impact Statement should also include endangered species, and should be mandatory

· Note # 14 - mentions forest, but not reflected on chart

Urban Zoning By-law Amendment - Required Studies and Assessments

· Note # 3 – FCA would like this Transportation Impact Study to be at 50 units rather than the current 100 units

· Note # 8 - last sentence should be changed to read “A Noise Study will be required for a commercial use if the proposed development is adjacent to an existing or proposed stationary noise source.”

· Item 15 - Environmental Impact Statement should also include endangered species

Draft Plan of Subdivision/Condominium - Required Studies and Assessments

· Item 13 – Noise/Vibration Study should be required at submission stage rather than as a condition (for both urban and rural applications)

· Note # 13 - last sentence should be changed to read “A Noise Study will be required for a commercial use if the proposed development is adjacent to an existing or proposed stationary noise source.”

· Notes # 18 and 20 – Environmental Impact Statement and Integrated Environmental Review Statement - would prefer to see these indicated as required through the dark dots on the chart because they are mandatory, when required

· Items 19 and 24 - EIS and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - what is the difference between the two?

· Notes # 23 and 24 - clarify wording to indicate where one can locate the completed Environmental Site Assessment

· Impact Assessment of Endangered Species – should be mandatory for rural applications

· Could greenspace protection and tree protection be built in earlier in the process?

Site Plan - Required Studies and Assessments

· Item 13 – Noise/Vibration Study – should be required at submission rather than during review

· Note # 13, last sentence should be changed to read, “A Noise Study will be required for commercial uses if the proposed development is adjacent to an existing or proposed stationary noise source.”

· Item 20 - should take place earlier

· Item 22 - should be required earlier in the process before site plan control

· Item 27 - should be required earlier in the process before site plan control

Development Industry Comments on Complete Applications Piece – Required Studies and Reports

General Comments

Should define study requirements

Draft Plan of Subdivision/Condominium - Required Studies and Assessments

· Note #3 – would prefer to provide a brief synopsis at submission, followed by a detailed study as a draft plan condition if required, rather than a Transportation Impact Study at submission

· Item 4 – would prefer to identify public service outlets e.g. water, wastewater, stormwater rather than Assessment of Adequacy of Public Services AKA Conceptual Site Servicing Study

· Notes #5, #6, #7, #8 – consider that the provision of Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis, Wellhead Protection Plan, Reasonable Use Study, and Groundwater Impact Assessment are unreasonable requirements and should be consistent with MOE regulations

· Note #17 – Planning Rationale should be a simple brief that provides a statement of compliance

· Item 17 – Urban Design Study should be removed from list

· Item 20 – Archaeological Resource Assessment – if required, should be required at the draft plan condition stage rather than at the review stage

· Item 26 – Record of Site Condition – If required, should be required as a draft plan condition, rather than at the review stage

· Note #20 – would prefer that Integrated Environmental Review Statement should be part of the cover letter listing all environmental studies/assessments

· Note #21 – Tree Preservation and Protection Plan – the interpretation of existing creates a false expectation that vegetation can be protected. Reality dictates most cannot be protected due to standards etc.

Site Plan - Required Studies and Assessments

· Note #3 – would prefer to provide a brief synopsis at submission, followed by a detailed study as a draft condition if required, rather than a Transportation Impact Study at submission

· Item 4 – would prefer to identify public service outlets e.g. water, wastewater, stormwater rather than Assessment of Adequacy of Public Services AKA Conceptual Site Servicing Study

· Items 5,6,7,8 are only required for rural developments

· Item 9 – should be required as a draft condition

· Items 10, 11 – Stormwater Site Management Plans and Geotechnical Studies – should be indicated in a letter up front if they have previously been done. More detailed information should be provided as a draft conditions.

· Item 15 – Minimum Distance Separation – should only be required for rural applications

· Item 17 – Urban Design Study – not required at all – should be removed

· Item 18 – Planning rationale should be only one paragraph

· Note #20 – would prefer that Integrated Environmental review Statement should be part of the cover letter listing all environmental studies/assessments

Urban Zoning By-law Amendment - Required Studies and Assessments

· Note #3 – would prefer to provide a brief synopsis at submission, followed by a detailed study if required, rather than a Transportation Impact Study at submission

· Item 4 – would prefer to identify public service outlets e.g. water, wastewater, stormwater rather than Assessment of Adequacy of Public Services AKA Conceptual Site Servicing Study

· Items 5, 6 – Wellhead Protection Plan and Groundwater Impact Assessment – not required

· Items 11, 12, 13, 14 – Market Feasibility and Impact Study, Socio-economic Impact Statement, Urban Design Study, Parking Study – should be removed if not required

Rural Zoning By-law Amendment - Required Studies and Assessments

· Note #3 – would prefer to provide a brief synopsis at submission, followed by a detailed study if required, rather than a Transportation Impact Study at submission

· Items 4, 6, 7 – Hydrogeological and Terrain Analysis, Reasonable Use Study, and Groundwater Impact Assessment – should be combined

· Items 13, 14, 15 – Market Feasibility and Impact Study, Socio-Economic Impact Statement, Parking Study – should be removed if not required.

Official Plan Amendment - Required Studies and Assessments

· Item 1 – would prefer to identify public service outlets e.g. water, wastewater, stormwater rather than Assessment of Adequacy of Public Services AKA Conceptual Site Servicing Study

· Item 14 – Urban Design Study – should be removed

· Item 16 – Agrology and Soil Capability Study – remove as there is no OP reference

Pre-Application Public Consultation	Prior to Filing Application
Application Submission	Day 1
Application Deemed Complete/Reviewed for Adequacy	Day 6
Identify Date for Report at PEC Meeting = Day 98 or less
Community Heads-up	Day 9
Circulation/Notification	Day 14
Posting of On-site Sign	Day 17
End of Circulation Period	Day 45
End of Issue Resolution	Day 60
Report Preparation	Day 68
Committee Meeting Advertisement	Day 83
Report Sign-off	Day 77
Planning and Environment Committee Meeting	Day 98

Status Report on Applications Not achieving targeted PEC Meeting
	Application Type	Ward	Address	Target PEC Meeting	Circumstances		Revised PEC Target
1.	On Time Review	City-Wide	N/A	June 8	Letters received from the Federation of Citizens’ Associations, Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders’ Association and the Building Owners and Managers Association requesting additional time		Sept 28
2.
3.
4.
Status Report on Applications Not achieving Delegated Authority Target Date
	Application Type	Ward	Address	Target Staff Approval Date	Circumstances	Revised Staff Target
1.
2.
3.
4.

Type of Application		*Planning Fee*		*Legal Fee*		Total
New - Director Approval Public Consultation		$8,169*		$1,500 + $105 GST		$9,774
Plus
Initial Engineering Design Review and Inspection Fee:	$1,000 ($934.58 + $65.42 GST) (value of Hard and Soft Servicing <$50,000) or $5,000 ($4,672.90 + $327.10 GST) (value of Hard and Soft Servicing $50,000-$300,000) or $10,000 ($9,345.79 + $654.21 GST) (value of Hard and Soft Servicing >$300,000)
Plus
Initial Conservation Authority Fee:	Wards 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18				$50 or
	Remainder of City		Full Municipal Services		$350 or
			Private On-Site Services		$700

Draft Site Plan Approval Fees Required at Application Submission:
Planning Fee: $ 5869*
Plus
Initial Engineering Design Review and Inspection Fee:	$1,000 ($934.58 + $65.42 GST) (value of Hard and Soft Servicing <$50,000) or $5,000 ($4,672.90 + $327.10 GST) (value of Hard and Soft Servicing $50,000-$300,000) or $10,000 ($9,345.79 + $654.21 GST) (value of Hard and Soft Servicing >$300,000)
Plus
Initial Conservation Authority Fee:	Wards 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18		$50 or
	Remainder of City	Full Municipal Services	$350 or
		Private On-Site Services	$700
Fees Required Prior to Final Approval
*Agreement Planning Fee*	*Legal Fee*	*Total Fee*
$2300	$1,500 + $105 GST	$3905

Column “A”	Column “B”
Easement	$350.00
Encroachment	$350.00
Conveyance as a condition of development approval	$150.00
Postponement Agreement	$150.00
Partial Discharge of Mortgage	$150.00
Maintenance and Liability Agreement	$300.00
Do it Yourself Construction Agreements for roads, sewers and traffic signals	$700.00
Inhibiting Orders - routine	$150.00
Inhibiting Orders – complex	$450.00
Release of Inhibiting Order – routine	$100.00
Release of Inhibiting Order - complex	$450.00
Early Servicing Agreement	$2,950.00
Watermain Agreements	$150.00
Deferral Agreement for development charges	$300.00
Release of Deferral Agreement	$150.00
Communal Water Agreement	$2,950.00
Private Roadway Agreement	$350.00
Release of Site Plan Agreement	$250.00
Pre-Servicing Agreement	$250.00
Agreements arising from Consent Application	$950.00
Agreements arising from Minor Variance	$350.00
Well Agreements	$150.00
Other Agreements arising from Committee of Adjustment Applications	$250.00

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 1 - On Time Review

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

On-Time Review – A New Approach (Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendments)

Prior to Filing Application

Day 1

Day 6

Identify Date for Report at PEC Meeting = Day 98 or less

Day 9

Circulation/Notification

Day 14

Day 17

Day 45

Day 60

Day 68

Day 83

Day 77

Day 98

Ward

Address

Ward

Address

RURAL ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

Internal Technical Review

External Technical Review

Public Circulation

Number of Plans Required

SITE PLAN CONTROL PROCESS FEES Document 7

Current fees for Site Plan Control

Type of Application

Total

Plus

Proposed Fees for Two-Stage (Draft and Final) Site Plan Control

Revisions/Re-circulations: Fee: $2,109.05 (includes $515+$36.05 GST Legal Fee)

SITE PLAN CONTROL PROCESS

FOR STREET TOWNHOUSES Document 8

HERITAGE APPLICATION PROCESS

Review of Site Elements

Public/Advisory Groups/Community Organization Comments

On Time Review Initiative

Departmental Response

Pre-Application Public Consultation

Departmental Response

Delegation of Authority

Departmental Response

Online Access to Information

Departmental Response

Notification and Circulation

Departmental Response

Application Deemed Complete/Reviewed for Adequacy

Departmental Response

Two Stage Site Plan

Departmental Response

Site Plan By-law Amendments

Departmental Response

Post-Approval Process

Departmental Response

On-Site Signs

Departmental Response

Mediation

Departmental Response

Site Plan Control for Street Townhouses

Attendance at Public Meetings

Departmental Response

Development Industry Comments

Delegated Authority

Departmental Response

Two-Stage Site Plan Process

Departmental Response

Subdivision/Site Plan

On Time Review

Departmental Response

Site Plans for Street Towns

Departmental Response

Site Plan Control By-law Amendments

Public/Advisory Groups/Community Organization Comments

Official Plan Amendment - Required Studies and Assessments

Rural Zoning By-law Amendment - Required Studies and Assessments

Urban Zoning By-law Amendment - Required Studies and Assessments

Draft Plan of Subdivision/Condominium - Required Studies and Assessments