Report to / Rapport au :

17. Committee of Adjustment - Structure and Organization -
Implementation Plan

Structure et organisation du Comité de dérogation -
Plan de mise en oeuvre

Committee Recommendations as Amended

That Council approve the following:

1. The existing Committees of Adjustment/Rural Alliance Severance Committee continue their service until December 31, 2001 with provisions for an interim budget covering that period;

2. A new 15-member Committee of Adjustment sitting in three panels of five members (one rural and two urban panels) be created with a centralized Committee office to commence operation on January 1, 2002, with the boundaries set as shown in Document 3, with the addition of the Cumberland urban area, as defined in the Cumberland Official Plan, to the suburban area.

3. That a Secretary-Treasurer and Deputy Secretary-Treasurer for the new Committee of Adjustment be appointed by the new Members before the end of this year (2001) and that in the interim the Development Services Department appoint an interim Secretary-Treasurer in order that the operational framework and office requirements can be developed to ensure a seamless transition on January 1, 2002;

4. That Development Services Department provide professional planning support on all applications made to the Committee of Adjustment as outlined in this report and that an additional three professional planners (3 new FTEs) be included in the Department’s 2002 Budget;

5. That a Tariff of Fees Schedule that would reflect 100% cost recovery as shown in Document 5 be approved and that the new Committee of Adjustment reflects this cost recovery in their budget.

6. That the issue of secondary consent application fees be referred to the new Committee of Adjustment.

Recommandations du comité

Que le Conseil municipal approuve ce qui suit :

1. que les Comités de dérogation et le Comité de morcellement des terres de l’Alliance rurale demeurent en place jusqu’au 1^er janvier 2002 et qu’un budget provisoire soit prévu pour assurer le maintien de leurs activités durant cette période;

2. qu’un nouveau Comité de dérogation comptant 15 membres répartis parmi trois groupes de travail de cinq membres chacun (un groupe affecté aux questions rurales et deux groupes affectés aux questions urbaines) soit créé et doté d’un bureau centralisé, et que ce comité entre en fonction le 1^er janvier 2002, conformément aux limites définies dans le document n^o 3, avec l’ajout de la région rurale de Cumberland, tel qu’elle est définie dans le Plan directeur de Cumberland, à la région suburbaine;

3. que les nouveaux membres du Comité de dérogation nomment un secrétaire-trésorier et un secrétaire-trésorier adjoint avant la fin de l’année (2001) et que, dans l’intervalle, les Services d’aménagement nomment un secrétaire-trésorier intérimaire afin de définir le cadre opérationnel et les besoins du nouveau bureau pour assurer une transition sans heurts le 1^er janvier 2002;

4. que les Services d’aménagement assurent le suivi, par des urbanistes professionnels, de toutes les demandes soumises au Comité de dérogation, tel que décrit dans le présent rapport, et qu’ils prévoient, au budget de 2002, l’ajout de trois autres urbanistes professionnels (trois nouveaux ETP) à leurs effectifs;

5. que soit approuvée une liste tarifaire reflétant le plein recouvrement des coûts (100 %), tel que présenté dans le document n^o 6, et que le Comité de dérogation tienne compte de ce recouvrement des coûts dans son budget.

6. que la question des droits de demande d’autorisation secondaire soit renvoyée au nouveau Comité de dérogation.

Documentation

1. Development Services Department General Manager’s report dated 18 Jul 2001 is immediately attached (ACS2001-DEV-APR-0188).

2. Map showing Proposed Committee of Adjustment Panel Structure Revised Option 2 immediately follows the report.

3. An Extract of Draft Minute, 09 Aug 2001, follows and includes a record of the vote.

4. Copies of the following correspondence are held on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter to the Planning and Development Committee from F. Ribas, Chair of the former City of Kanata Committee of Adjustment (dated 09 Aug 2001)

· Letter to the Planning and Development Committee from W. R. Hunter (dated 08 Aug 2001)

· Letter to the Planning and Development Committee from T. Fobert, Chair of the former City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment (dated 08 Aug 2001)

Report to/Rapport au:

Planning and Development Committee/

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

and Council/et au Conseil

18 July 2001/le 18 juillet 2001

Submitted by/Soumis par: Ned Lathrop, General Manager/Directeur général

Development Services Department/Services d’aménagement

Contact/Personne-ressource: John Moser, Director/Directeur

Planning and Infrastructure Approvals/

Approbation des demandes d’urbanisme et d’infrastructure

580-2424 ext. 28869 john.moser@city.ottawa.on.ca

Ref N°: ACS2001-DEV-APR-0188

SUBJECT: Committee of Adjustment - Structure and Organization - implementation plan

OBJET: STRUCTURE ET ORGANISATION DU COMITÉ DE DÉROGATION -plan de mise en oeuvre

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the following:

1. The existing Committees of Adjustment/Rural Alliance Severance Committee continue their service until December 31, 2001 with provisions for an interim budget covering that period;

5. That a Tariff of Fees Schedule that would reflect 100% cost recovery as shown in Document 5 be approved and that the new Committee of Adjustment reflects this cost recovery in their budget.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement recommandent au Conseil municipal d’approuver ce qui suit :

BACKGROUND

On 06 July 2001, a joint meeting was held of the Planning and Development; Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees. Following the staff presentation and delegations who spoke on this issue and presented written submissions, considerable debate ensued by the Joint Committee members on the direction to give staff regarding the changes proposed. As per the minutes of this meeting and the resolutions passed, staff have revised the report dated 10 June 2001 to address the issues raised by the Joint Committee members.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 2 AND 3

COMMITTEE STRUCTURE/ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK

The Joint Committee’s direction of 06 July 2001 was to create a 15 member Committee comprised of local residents which will sit in three panels of five members each. The Committee will sit as an autonomous body with its own staff.

The new Committee will appoint one Chair (Panel 1) and two Vice-Chairs (Panels 2 and 3). The Chair, Vice-Chairs and the Secretary-Treasurer will be responsible for co‑ordinating the three Committee panels. As part of its rules of procedures, the Committee will decide on the number of Public Hearings to be scheduled, the location of the hearings and the timing. While it is proposed that each panel will have administrative support, the staffing level should be flexible and ultimately determined by the number of applications being heard. The three panels (five members each) will sit independently but may cover-off one another to maintain the quorum requirements.

The honorariums for the Committee members were approved by City Council on July 11, 2001 as follows: the Chair (1) would receive $270 per meeting (approximately 24 meetings per year) to a maximum of $6500 per annum, the Vice-Chairs (2) would each receive $250 per meeting to a maximum of $6000 per annum, and the members (12) would each receive $230 per meeting to a maximum of $5500 per annum. This would amount to a total honorarium budget of $84,500.00 per year. The honorariums are similar to those now in place with the old City of Ottawa’s Committee of Adjustment and given the significant increase in workload across the entire new City of Ottawa, these recommended honorariums are justifiable.

As noted in Document 1, the Committee of Adjustment Office and its staff (Secretary-Treasurer and Deputy Secretary-Treasurer and the six Application/Technical Clerks) will be an independent and autonomous body and will perform its duties at an “arms length” from the City administration. The new Committee will be responsible for preparing its own annual operating budget which shall include Members’ honorariums, mileage and parking expenses, Secretary-Treasurer and Deputy Secretary-Treasurer’s salary and benefits, office space requirements, salaries and benefits for six FTE administration support staff.

In regard to applications already in process as of December 31, 2001, the new Committee of Adjustment will continue to complete the processing of these active files as per the “home-rule” procedures now in place. However, the existing Committee of Adjustment and Rural Alliance Severance Office should make every effort to complete these active files before the new Committee assumes this responsibility on January 1, 2002.

Panel Structure

As per the Joint Committee direction on 06 July 2001, the new City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment will be organized into three panels, two Urban and one Rural. Staff are recommending these panels be organized along the City Ward boundary structure in order that City Councillors can more easily respond to the enquiries from Ward constituents who my seek advice from their elected representatives regarding consent and variance applications submitted to the new Committee of Adjustment. Also, the Ward boundaries were used to determine the geographical split within the Planning and Infrastructure Approvals Branch of the Development Services Department. This will provide the basis for dedicating professional planning FTE’s (5) to work on a full-time basis with the Committee of Adjustment work volume.

Two Panel Structure options are being presented for Committee’s consideration (see Documents 2 and 3).

Option 1

This would consist of:

Urban Panel 1 (Wards 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18)

Urban Panel 2 (Wards 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16)

Rural Panel 3 (Wards 19, 20, 21, 5 and 6)

Pros

· Reduces workload on two Urban Panels to some degree.

· Keeps Panel 3 more oriented to Rural related issues.

· Ward boundaries assist administrative support function.

Cons

· Splits downtown urban core

· Jurisdictional responsibility between Panels 1 and 2 not as clear.

· More of a mix of suburban issues which raise different issues than those in the urban core, i.e. heritage.

Option 2

This would consist of:

Urban Panel 1 (Wards 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18)

Urban Panel 2 (Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11)

Rural Panel 3 (Wards 19, 20, 21, 5 and 6)

Pros

· Maintains the integrity of downtown urban core.

· Retains the predominant rural nature of Panel 3.

· Provides a more concise Ward boundary combination for administrative support services.

Cons

· As noted in Documents 2 and 3, Panel 1 workload is greater than Panel 2 but not in a significant way (comparing the two Options based on the first six months of 2001 under Option 1, Panel 1 would be processing 226 applications and Panel 2, 170 applications. Under Option 2, Panel 1 processes 272 applications and Panel 2, 124 applications).

Based on the above-noted options, staff recommends Option 2 (see Document 3), based on the pros and cons evaluation so noted.

RECOMMENDATION 4

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT’S STAFF COMMITMENT TO COMMITTEE

Given the fact that former Municipal Zoning By-laws will remain in place for quite some time and possible confusion over zoning interpretations and City planning policies may arise, a close working relationship will be required between the Development Services Department (DSD) and Committee of Adjustment. It is important that DSD staff provide the new Committee/staff with an orientation session early in their mandate and provide on-going advisory training sessions as deemed necessary as by-laws and policies are harmonized across the entire city. The DSD would also provide planning support to the new Committee as follows:

assigning a staff member upon Council’s appointment of the new 15 member Committee of Adjustment to act as an Interim Secretary-Treasurer.

planners will review all applications and provide support/input to new Committee members and staff. The planner will coordinate all DSD comments to ensure that one response on behalf of the City is sent to the Committee.

planners will act as a general resource person to Committee of Adjustment staff, Councillors, Community Associations and interested individuals.

pre-consultation with a planner and close interaction between Committee staff and planners is important. This practice heads off unsupportable applications, allows ‘fine tuning’ of applications and reduces the number of appeals.

planners will provide written comments to the Committee on all applications. Staff will verify the accuracy of information provided on the consent or variance application forms pertaining to the Zoning and Official Plan designations and the conformity thereof, will also provide an explanation for supporting applications that are particularly contentious. This will be of help to various Community Associations on site specific issues which are outside the domain of documented planning and zoning policies and regulations. However, there will be times when the community will have to take on issues themselves.

planners will recommend, where necessary, conditions to be imposed on the approval of the application to conform to City Council’s adopted standards or specifications, as well as recommending either full support of the application without any conditions on recommending that the application not be approved due to a non-conformity issue with either zoning or Official Plan issues. Also, planners will be required to perform site checks on most of the applications circulated by the Committee of Adjustment.

planners will attend all Committee meetings.

planners will review Committee decisions and recommend to senior staff to decide if an appeal should be initiated on the Committee decision. Any staff initiated appeals will require ratification by City Council.

a planner/City solicitor will attend Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearings to defend any City Council ratified appeals.

planner/City solicitor will not attend OMB hearings on appeals initiated by applicant or the public – unless subpoenaed or so directed by Council.

Given the above-noted level of support the Development Services Department will provide to the Committee of Adjustment, there will be a need to assign five planners on a full-time basis to the Committee. Two planners will be assigned to Urban Panel 1, two planners to Urban Panel 2, and one planner to Rural Panel 3 in order to provide timely comments (two week turnaround time) and assistance on processing the approximately 1 000 applications per year. This represents three additional planners (FTE’s) from what was recommended in the previous staff report dated 20 June 2001. This would translate into an additional $150,000 plus overtime and sundry costs for the Development Services Department’s 2002 Budget.

APPOINTMENT OF AN INTERIM SECRETARY-TREASURER

In order to proceed with laying the groundwork for the new Committee office to ensure a smooth transition on January 1, 2002, and since the members of the new Committee of Adjustment may not be appointed for some time, it is recommended that an interim Secretary-Treasurer be appointed as soon as possible until such time as the new Committee Members appoint a permanent Secretary-Treasurer and Deputy Secretary-Treasurer before the end of 2001.

The Development Services Department will assign a staff member to work with the new Committee Members on a full-time basis acting as an interim Secretary-Treasurer in order to assist the new Committee in establishing its operational framework, office requirements, and subsequent hiring of a full-time, permanent Secretary-Treasurer and Deputy Secretary-Treasurer. This person shall have no vested interest in seeking the position of permanent Secretary-Treasurer or Deputy Secretary-Treasurer during the recruitment process, but may assist the new Committee Members in the selection of qualified candidates to these permanent positions if the Members decide this assistance is necessary.

RECOMMENDATION 5

Tariff of Fees

After reviewing the former area municipal fees for Committee of Adjustment applications, staff is recommending that the fee structure, based on 100% cost recovery, as set out in Document 5 be implemented before December 31, 2001, in order that the new Committee of Adjustment can operate effectively. It will be necessary for City Council to pass a by-law to set the new fees.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

By establishing a Rural Panel 3 of the Committee of Adjustment to handle solely rural related issues in dealing with consent and variance applications, residents in the rural area of the new City can be served in the same fashion as now provided by the Rural Alliance Severance Committee. The location of where Panel 3 holds its Hearings should rest with the new Committee, however proximity to the rural residents should be a factor in this decision as well as minimizing travel times by selecting a central location on major arterial highways.

CONSULTATION

As a result of the Joint Planning and Development/Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees meeting on 06 July 2001, a number of public delegations made verbal and written submissions to this Joint Committee. Many of the issues raised by the delegation representatives were incorporated into the Joint Committees’ resolutions which were adopted by Regional Council. As a result, the staff report dated 18 July 2001 has incorporated these changes and a copy of this revised report has been circulated to the same key stakeholder as was the previous staff report, i.e. Secretary/Treasurers of the existing Committees of Adjustment and Rural Alliance Severance Office President of the Federation of Community Associations and the Director of the Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders Association.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

As noted previously, there will be honorariums for the 15 Committee members. Based on 24 meetings per year, based on a per meeting rate, the Chair (1) would receive $270 per meeting to a maximum of $6500 per annum, the Vice-Chairs (2) wouldeach receive $250 per meeting to a maximum of $6000 per annum and the Members (12) would each receive $230 per meeting to a maximum of $5500 per annum. This would amount to a total honorarium budger of approximately $84,500 per year.

It is estimated that the new Committee of Adjustment will require an overall budget of approximately $600,000 (including the above-noted honorarium costs). This will be offset by approximately $625,800 in expected revenue which will vary according to the Tariff of Fee Schedule and the application volumes from year to year. Cost savings from the amalgamation of 12 Committees to one Committee are primarily from Committee members and staff-related reductions, i.e. proposed total complement of 23 (8 staff and 15 committee members) as compared to the present complement of 57 (10 staff and 47 committee members). The one new Committee will process the same volume of applications that are now handled by the 12 separate Committees, including all costs associated with advertising and circulation requirements, office supplies, etc.

The Department of Development Services advises that the new tariff will generate an estimated $625,800. in revenue in 2002. This is an additional $340,800. above the approved 2001 $285,000. revenue budget for Committee of Adjustments.

The additional revenue will offset the 3 planners required per recommendation 4 estimated to cost $150,000. plus support for an estimated total of $200,000.

Retention of Committees of Adjustment / Rural Alliance (rec.1) and the hiring of the Secretary Treasurer and Deputy (rec. 3) may overlap but any 2001 over expenditure is anticipated to be insignificant.

Meeting and notice translation requirements are unknown at this time and the budget may have to be increased in the 2002 budget.

The Committee of Adjustment 2002 revenue budget will be increased by $340,800.

The Committee of Adjustment 2002 expense budget will be increased from $592,300 to $600,000. or by $7,700.

The 2002 budget for Development Services - Planning and Infrastructure Approvals will be increased by approximately $200,000.

Anticipated 2002 net savings are $340,800. - $7,700. - $200,000. = $133,100.

ATTACHMENTS

Document 1: Committee of Adjustment Organizational Chart

Document 2: Proposed Committee of Adjustment Panel Structure – Option 1

Document 3: Proposed Committee of Adjustment Panel Structure – Option 2

Document 4: Volume of Applications (1997 1998 and 1999)

Document 5: Tariff of Fees

DISPOSITION

1. The Secretariat Services Division initiate the process for the recruitment and subsequent appointment of the new Committee of Adjustment members by City Council as soon as possible in order that this Committee be operational on January 1, 2002.

2. The Development Services Department proceed with appointing an “interim” Secretary-Treasurer for the new Committee of Adjustment in order to lay down the groundwork for the administrative steps and procedures that will ensure the seamless transition of this function on January 1, 2002.

3. Legal staff prepare and City Council pass a by-law with respect to the tariff of fees for Committee of Adjustment.

Document 1

Proposed Committee of Adjustment Panel Structure (Option 1) Document 2

Proposed Committee of Adjustment Panel Structure – Option 2 Document 3

Volume of Applications (1997, 1998 and 1999) Document 4

3-YEAR SURVEY (1997-1999)

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSMENT

ACTIVITY

Municipality	Consents				Application Fee	Minor Variances				Application Fee
Municipality	Applications 1997 1998 1999			Total (3 year)	Application Fee	Applications 1997 1998 1999			Total (3 year)	Application Fee
Gloucester	51	39	65	155	$500	38	49	35	122	$400
Kanata	23	40	20	83	$300	15	28	27	70	$300
Ottawa	202	231	193	626	$600	329	298	352	979	$400
Vanier	2	4	0	6	$225	14	20	17	51	$150
R. Park	-	-	-	-	$250	8	7	9	24	$250
Nepean	55	56	45	156	$500	34	35	39	108	$350
Cumberland	25	20	23	68	$700	14	10	9	33	$500
Rural Alliance	131	136	112	379	$1000	-	-	-		-
· W. Carleton	-	-	-	-	-	15	11	8	34	$400
· Goulbourn	-	-	-	-	-	20	15	11	46	$400
· Rideau	-	-	-	-	-	2	5	8	15	$350
· Osgoode	-	-	-	-	-	13	17	17	47	$350
GRAND TOTALS	489	526	458	1473		502	495	532	1529

Tariff of Fees Document 5

	Fee Options
Type of Application	#1 110% Cost Recovery	#2 100% Cost Recovery	#3 90% Cost Recovery

Consent	$1,000	$900	$600
Reprocessing Fee	200	200	200
Minor Variance/ Permission	400	300	400
Validation of Title/ Power of Sale	600	600	600

Rationale

As noted on the Tables shown in Document 3, the number of applications, both Consents and Variances, for the first six months of 2001 were doubled to estimate a total 2001 year end figure and multiplied by the proposed fee rate to establish either a 110%, 100% or 90% cost recovery estimate for the recommended Option 2.

Option 2

Panel 1	Consents Variances	196 348	196,000 139,200	176,400 104,400	117,600 139,200
Panel 2	Consents Variances	132 116	132,000 46,400	118,800 34,800	79,200 46,400
Panel 3	Consents Variances	194 56	194,000 22,400	174,600 16,800	116,480 22,400
		1 042	730,000 (110%)	625,800 (100%)	521,280 (90%)

			$1 000 for Consents $400 for Variances	$900 for Consents $300 for Variances	$600 for Consents $400 for Variances

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN /

STRUCTURE ET ORGANISATION DU COMITÉ DE DÉROGATION -

PLAN DE MISE EN OEUVRE

ACS2001-DEV-APR-0188

John Moser, Director, Development and Infrastructure Approvals Branch, Development Services Department, provided a brief overview of the staff report.

Ned Lathrop, General Manager, Development Services Department advised that Councillor McNeely had spoken to him about an issue related to ward boundaries. He noted that in the Eastern Urban Community, the boundary chosen between the urban panel and the rural panel was based on the ward boundary. The urban community has expanded south of the ward boundary into Ward 19, and Councillor McNeely felt it would be more appropriate to include within the urban panel, the East Urban Community. Mr. Lathrop indicated staff agreed with this amendment. Councillor Harder advised she would be moving a motion in this regard, on behalf of Councillor McNeely.

Murray Chown, Novatech Engineering noted Greg Winters had made a written submission on behalf of Novatech, on the initial report. He said he was pleased that the Committee and Council had chosen to have three panels instead of two. In terms of defining the areas for the panels, Mr. Chown said he did not feel strongly about any of the options in front of the Committee. He observed that the configuration of the panels is somewhat related to the staff support requirements and Option 2 (rather than Option 1) somewhat better reflects the boundaries of the former municipalities and was more logical in terms of having planners familiar with the current zoning and official plan policies of the former municipalities. Mr. Chown concluded by saying he was pleased to see the direction this was going in.

Jacques Hamel Vice Chair of the former City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment read a letter submitted by Ted Fobert, Chairman of the former City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment (held on file with the City Clerk). The recommendations contained in the letter are summarized as follows:

· Staff resources for the Committee of Adjustment office should be increased from eight to ten;

· Three panels set up as: Panel 1 – the core area - former Ottawa, Rockcliffe Park and Vanier; Panel 2 – western area - former Nepean, Kanata, Stittsville and the surrounding rural area; and Panel 3 – eastern area – former Gloucester, Cumberland and the surrounding rural area.

· The interim resource person should liaise with the existing Committees of Adjustment in the development of the operational framework and office requirements for the new Committee

· A fee of $200 be adopted for each secondary consent application

Councillor Cullen asked for a staff response with respect to Mr. Hamel’s fourth recommendation concerning $200 for each secondary consent application. Barry Edgington, Special Projects Consultant advised he could understand the reasoning behind this in the urban area (e.g. with infill situations) but said he would have some concerns about how this could apply to the rural area. He felt consideration of this issue should be deferred to the new Committee of Adjustment to review.

Councillor Arnold asked if staff had looked at the boundaries proposed by the former City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment. Mr. Edgington advised during the Transition Board review of this issue, and again in compiling this report to Committee, a number of combinations were looked at. He noted staff relied on the previous direction from Committee and Council with respect to two urban panels and one rural panel and had basically used the capital wards as boundaries.

Councillor Arnold sought confirmation that, should there be a problem with the way in which these panels are established, a further report and recommendation would come forward to Committee. Mr. Edgington confirmed this.

At Councillor Arnold’s request, Mr. Edgington confirmed (with respect to the delegation’s third recommendation) it was staff’s intent that the interim resource person would liaise with the existing Committees of Adjustment in the development of the operational framework and office requirements for the new Committee.

Responding to questions from the Committee concerning the number of FTE’s proposed by staff (i.e. eight), Mr. Moser noted the Committee of Adjustment would be free standing and it would be up to them to come back to Planning and Development Committee and Council to ask for additional resources in their budget process.

Otto Fisher, a member of the former City of Gloucester, Committee of Adjustment, referenced a letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Adjustment, William Hunter dated 8 Aug 01 (held on file with the City Clerk). Mr. Fisher highlighted the recommendations contained in the letter, as follows:

· There should be 10 FTE’s for the three panels, including the Secretary-Treasurer and two deputies;

· The meeting times should be initially set at 7:00 p.m., subject to change by the panels;

· The option proposed by the former City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment would be the preferred option (not Option 2 as was stated in Mr. Hunter’s letter). Mr. Fisher provided to members of the Committee a colour-coded map of the panels (held on file with the City Clerk).

Speaking to the proposed boundaries, Mr. Fisher felt it important that members of the Committee of Adjustment be familiar with the area they are dealing with. The suburban area panel recommended by staff is too large and it would be impossible for anyone to know it all. As well, Mr. Fisher said often committee members visit the sites and this too would be difficult with such a large area. He also pointed out that in Gloucester, they dealt with both urban and rural applications and this did not prove difficult. He urged the Committee to consider these recommendations.

Responding to questions from Councillor Bellemare, Mr. Fisher explained Mr. Hunter’s letter had been written the previous morning in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting the previous evening. He clarified the committee felt that Option 2 was better than Option 1, however, their preferred option would be that proposed by the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment (as set out in the map provided by Mr. Fisher).

Councillor Harder asked Mr. Fisher if the proposed boundaries would allow for an equitable distribution of the workload. Mr. Fisher advised this was not considered in detail, however, they did not feel there would be a great difference in the long run.

Councillor Stavinga noted staff had mentioned earlier, they foresaw complications with respect to this option, specifically as it relates to urban versus rural issues. Mr. Edgington confirmed this and added this proposed option would complicate how the Department would respond from an administrative point of view. He said Option 2 (as recommended by staff) is very similar to the planning districts the Department has set up internally.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Stavinga, Mr. Edgington stated many of the technical, administrative decisions (e.g. times and locations of the meetings) should be dealt with by the new Committee of Adjustment.

As a closing comment, Mr. Fisher opined the meetings should be held in one place continually (as opposed to rotating locations) and further, that the times of the meetings be set out so that people considering sitting on the committee can take this into account.

Linda Hoad, Federation of Citizens’ Associations (FCA) advised the FCA supports almost all of the staff report. She noted many of the concerns the FCA brought forward at the last meeting had been addressed. However, the FCA still had some concerns. With respect to the proposed panel structure, Ms. Hoad said the FCA supported Option 2 (although they were unaware of the option presented by the former Committees of Adjustment and therefore had not considered it). However, she said they had some concerns about the unequal workload and their recommendation would be that the committee monitor the workload and bring forward recommendations if they feel it is necessary.

Referencing page 116 of the Agenda, Ms. Hoad noted the report states the Committee of Adjustment would cover the cost of the three planners. While on page 114, the report states that $150,000 would be added to the Development Services Department budget to cover the cost of the three planners. She questioned where in fact the funding would be coming from. She opined that Committee of Adjustment fees should not be used to cover the cost of providing planning advice but rather these costs should be covered by the Department.

Finally, with respect to recommendation 5 and the fees proposed, Ms. Hoad said if the Committee accepts that the planning staff salary should not be recovered through the fees, then the proposed tariff of fees will have to be revised. The FCA recommends that Committee and Council provide direction concerning the degree of cost recovery (i.e. 90% or 100% would be acceptable) and that the new Committee of Adjustment, once appointed, should then prepare a fee schedule for Council approval.

Councillor Arnold asked for clarification on the point raised by Ms. Hoad concerning the funding source for the salaries of the planners. Mr. Moser stated the recommendation for 100% cost recovery was for the staff of the Committee of Adjustment. It was never intended that any of the planning support staff would be paid out of the fees collected. He said the report was inaccurate in stating this and any of the revenue generated would be for the Committee of Adjustment staff (i.e. 8 FTE’s). The monies required for the planning support will come out of the Department budget.

Councillor Cullen noted the Committees of Adjustment for the former Cities of Ottawa and Gloucester had both suggested that staff support be increased to 10 FTE’s. Referencing the minutes of the Joint Meeting where the initial report on the Committee of Adjustment was considered, the Councillor pointed out that three members of the Committee (i.e. Councillors Arnold, Bellemare and Stavinga) supported the increase in the staff complement to 10. He said he was absent from that meeting and would have supported such a motion. The Councillor indicated therefore he was moving a motion to amend recommendation 4 to increase the number of planners from three to five. He said the increase in planners would ensure the ability to comment on each and every Committee of Adjustment application, is done in a timely fashion.

Councillor Harder asked staff how the additional FTE’s would be funded. Mr. Lathrop advised that staff would be coming back to Committee and Council at budget time to request additional funds.

The Committee then considered the motions put forward.

Moved by J. Harder

That Recommendation 2 be amended by adding (after the words “as shown in Document 3”), “with the addition of the Cumberland urban area, as defined in the Cumberland Official Plan, to the suburban area.

CARRIED

Moved by A. Cullen

That Recommendation 4 be amended to read:

“4. That Development Services Department provide professional planning support on all applications made to the Committee of Adjustment as outlined in this report and that an additional five professional planners (5 new FTEs) be included in the Department’s 2002 Budget;

LOST

NAYS: J. Harder, G. Hunter and J. Stavinga…3

YEAS: E. Arnold, M. Bellemare and A. Cullen…3

Councillor Stavinga asked if there was a budget allocation to allow the new Committee of Adjustment to carry out the work required prior to the end of 2001. Mr. Moser advised it is recognized (both in this staff report and the previous report) that the existing Committees would continue to be funded until the end of this year. He felt there was enough latitude in those budgets and in the Departmental budget to be able to fund the start of the new Committee.

Councillor Cullen noted there was earlier discussion with respect to the secondary consent application fees and that this was an issue that should be referred to the Committee of Adjustment. He indicated he was moving a motion in this regard.

Moved by A. Cullen

That the issue of secondary consent application fees be referred to the new Committee of Adjustment.

CARRIED

The report as amended, was then approved.

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council approve the following:

1. The existing Committees of Adjustment/Rural Alliance Severance Committee continue their service until December 31, 2001 with provisions for an interim budget covering that period;

5. That a Tariff of Fees Schedule that would reflect 100% cost recovery as shown in Document 5 be approved and that the new Committee of Adjustment reflects this cost recovery in their budget.

6. That the issue of secondary consent application fees be referred to the new Committee of Adjustment.

CARRIED as amended