1. response to council
motion relating to |
Committee recommendations as
amended
1. WHEREAS there
are long standing concerns that public amenities and infrastructure, such as
active and passive parks, tot lots, and pathways in developing neighbourhoods
are not being completed in a timely manner or to the performance specifications
required by the City of Ottawa;
AND
WHEREAS the collection and hold back of securities appears to be an
insufficient motivator to ensure land developers and builders are completing
these works;
Therefore
be it resolved that Council approve:
a) That City staff
undertake expeditiously an internal and external review of the delivery of
parks and public amenities, including but not limited to funding, development
charges, delivery of construction; as well as means to accelerate timely
completion, including the implementation of specific schedules for completion
as part of the subdivision conditions (eg: cleaning and greening must be
completed within four months from the issuance of the first building permit);
and,
b) That, as part of
this review, City staff develop a more integrated approach to coordinate
efforts between Planning & Growth Management, Community & Protective
Services and Public Works & Services in the review of development
applications, the development of subdivision conditions, and the implementation
of these conditions to ensure the necessary servicing (eg: the provision of
roads, water servicing, sanitary and storm sewers) is in place to ensure the
timely delivery of parks, and
c) that staff
report back to the Planning and Environment committee in the Fall of 2006.
2. WHEREAS the
provincial Planning Act prevents the City of Ottawa from denying or delaying
planning applications in order to seek compliance on a separate planning file
involving the same developer, and
WHEREAS
the power to deny or delay approval for planning applications when a developer
has not completed work required for another project would assist the City in ensuring roads, parks or other
infrastructure required as a condition of development approval is completed,
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that, the City of Ottawa request that the Province of Ontario
review provisions of the Planning Act preventing municipalities from denying or
delaying planning applications in order to seek compliance on a separate
planning file involving the same developer.
Recommandations modifiÉes du Comité
1. ATTENDU
QUE le fait que les travaux de construction de commodités publiques et
d’infrastructures, comme les parcs actifs et passifs, les parcs de jeu et les
sentiers dans les quartiers en expansion, ne sont pas achevés dans des délais
raisonnables ou conformément aux caractéristiques techniques de rendement de la
Ville d’Ottawa suscite depuis longtemps des préoccupations;
ATTENDU QUE la perception et la
retenue de garanties semblent des facteurs de motivation insuffisants pour
encourager les promoteurs et les constructeurs à achever lesdits travaux;
Il est décidé que le Conseil
approuvera les mesures suivantes :
a) Que
le personnel municipal entreprenne le plus tôt possible un examen interne et externe
des projets de parcs et de commodités publiques, y compris en ce qui concerne
sans toutefois s’y limiter le financement, les redevances d'aménagement, la
réalisation des travaux de construction, ainsi que la prise de moyens pour
accélérer le processus, notamment la mise en œuvre d’échéanciers précis
relativement aux conditions rattachées aux lotissements (p. ex., le
nettoyage et l’écologisation doivent être terminés au plus tard
quatre mois après l’émission du premier permis de construire);
b) Que,
dans le cadre de l’examen en question, le personnel municipal élabore une
stratégie plus intégrée de sorte que Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de
la croissance, Services communautaires et de protection et Services et Travaux
publics coordonnent leurs efforts pour examiner les demandes d'aménagement,
établir les conditions relatives aux lotissements et les faire respecter afin
que les services publics requis (routes, aqueducs, égouts séparatifs et
pluviaux, etc.) soient en place en vue de permettre l’ouverture des parcs à la
population le plus rapidement possible;
c) Que
le personnel soumette un rapport à ce sujet au Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement à l’automne 2006.
2. ATTENDU
QU’aux termes de la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire de l’Ontario, la
Ville d’Ottawa ne peut rejeter ou reporter une demande d’aménagement afin de
vérifier la conformité d’une autre demande d’aménagement visant le même
promoteur;
ATTENDU QU’en ayant le pouvoir de
rejeter ou de reporter des demandes d’aménagement si le promoteur n’a pas
terminé les travaux requis pour un autre projet, la Ville pourrait veiller à ce
que les routes, les parcs et les autres infrastructures conditionnels à
l’approbation de demandes d’aménagement soient achevés;
IL EST DÉCIDÉ QUE la Ville d’Ottawa
demandera à la Province de l'Ontario de revoir les dispositions de la Loi
sur l’aménagement du territoire qui empêchent les municipalités de rejeter
ou de reporter des demandes d’aménagement afin de vérifier la conformité d’une
autre demande d’aménagement visant le même promoteur.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager's report (Planning
and Growth Management) dated
25 April 2006 (ACS2006-PGM-APR-0088).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 27 June 2006.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
25 April 2006 / le 25 avril 2006
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 : Larry Morrison, Manager/Gestionnaire,
Infrastructure Approvals / Approbation des demandes d’infrastructure
Planning and Infrastructure
Approvals/Approbation des demandes d’aménagement et d’infrastructure
(613) 580-2424 x 27807,
larry.morrison@ottawa.ca
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council receive
this report for information.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l'urbanisme et de l'environnement recommande au Conseil de prendre connaissance
du présent rapport à fin d'information.
BACKGROUND
On November 9, 2005 City Council passed a motion (see Document 1) seeking the preparation of a staff report to address concerns raised about some developers not completing works in a timely fashion. The main works of concern listed were active and passive parks, tot lots, road works and sidewalks in developing neighbourhoods.
The Council motion directed staff to investigate measures that would "'give teeth' and strengthen the ability of the City to ensure land developers and builders deliver on commitments" and further that such measures include, but not be limited to:
1. Denying any further planning approvals,
2. Denying early servicing agreements and conditional permits,
3. Denying issuance of building permits,
4. Establishing charge back costs or penalty payments associated with additional staff time required to ensure developers are meeting their obligations.
DISCUSSION
In responding to the motion, it is necessary to distinguish between pre-amalgamation development agreements (subdivision and site plan agreements) and new City of Ottawa development agreements.
Though many of the expectations between pre-amalgamation and post-amalgamation agreements remain consistent, there are some works that are no longer provided in the same manner. These works pertain mostly to the provision of parks and related works. For example, in some of the previous municipalities, it was a requirement, through development agreements, that developers construct the required parks and related works to municipal standards. Typically, the former municipality retained securities in order to ensure that these works were completed as expected.
The new City of Ottawa no longer requires developers to build our parks; rather the developer may be required to bring the park to an acceptable standard, following which, the City takes on the design and construction of the park, subject to Council approval of Development Charge funding to do so. Therefore, in the current environment, the onus is on the City to deliver the final park product. It should be noted, however, that there are circumstances that can delay or impede the City's ability to proceed with the construction of park facilities, such as road frontage may not have arrived to the park facility, servicing may not yet be available, etc. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are exceptions to when the City is responsible for park related works, especially when it comes to providing some of the off-site walkways or pathway systems, as well as some of the more passive pathway systems, such as those found along ravine systems and stream corridors. Pathway systems are still typically required as a condition of planning approval and are constructed by the developer. The City ensures their completion through the provision of securities in the development agreement. There is a general feeling, through consultation with the development industry, that there is a need to complete an internal and external review of the delivery of parks, including but not limited to funding, development charges, delivery of construction and timing.
It should be noted that for the most part, there has not been, nor is there currently any specified completion timelines for park related works, as the need for these works is dependant upon the rate of growth which can vary throughout the life of an agreement or a combination of agreements.
Though varied in expected timelines for completion, most former municipalities required that the developer provide securities to guarantee the construction of infrastructure works such as roads, sewers, watermains, sidewalks on public roadways, etc. Should a developer fail to complete the required works within specified timelines, the City could call upon the Letter of Credit to complete the works. This, for the most part, has remained unchanged with the new City of Ottawa. There have been instances where developers were slow to complete works such as lot grading, sidewalks or roadway modifications to name a few and securities were used by former municipalities and the new City to clean up incomplete and deficient works.
It is worth noting that the current City development agreements and most of the former municipalities do clearly specify expected completion times for major works. The major works that have specified timelines include underground services, road works, streetlights, walkways and pathways, fencing, lot grading, noise barriers, etc. External roadway modifications are not specified in the body of these agreements, because they are largely dependant on phasing and ultimate build out of the lands. Therefore, subject to the satisfactory completion of a traffic impact study, the City would include "special conditions" in the development agreement that would outline the specific expectations for the completion of roadway modifications. For example, certain roadway modifications may not be required until a certain threshold of units or floor space has been built out. It is more fiscally responsible, from an operations and maintenance funding point of view, to not have the developer construct these roadway modifications until such time as the warrants are met for the works, thereby keeping both on-going operational costs, as well as long term life cycle costs to a minimum for the City.
It should also be noted that the subdivision agreement allows for extensions of the specified completion timelines, subject to the approval of the Director, Infrastructure Services, for weather related issues. For example in the event of an early winter, it may not be possible to complete road works or concrete works for items such as curbs and sidewalks. It is also possible as seen this past construction season wherein supply of materials could be delayed due to acts of God, as was the case during Hurricane Katrina when it was difficult to obtain supplies from the region affected by the hurricane. Other works stoppages such as last year's Hydro strike also delayed some projects as well.
Staff has investigated the four measures proposed as mechanisms to ensure greater compliance as contained in the November 9, 2005 Council motion. We have arrived at the following conclusions.
Deny Any Further Planning Approvals
The City cannot deny or even delay planning applications in order to seek compliance on a separate planning file. The City must respond to, and process each planning application received pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, and we can only deny such applications for valid reasons associated with that specific planning application in hand. Any denials would always be subject to appeal with the Ontario Municipal Board.
Denying Early Servicing Agreements or Conditional Building Permits
Early Servicing Agreements are issued at the City's discretion. There is no obligation on behalf of the City to permit Early Servicing to occur in advance of the preparation of a development agreement. The City could therefore deny Early Servicing privileges.
Conditional building permits are issued at the discretion of the Chief Building Official based on the Official's assessment of whether certain conditions set out in the Building Code have been met or not. The discretionary authority must be exercised with reasonableness and thus while the management, by the permit holder, of other permits issued may be considered by the Official in determining whether a conditional building permit may be issued, the management of site works as per development agreements may not be considered. Thus, denial of conditional building permits is not a recommended tool for exacting compliance with a development agreement.
Denying the Issuance of Building Permits
The Building Code Act stipulates that the Chief Building Official shall issue a permit unless the proposed construction, if constructed, will not meet the standards set out in the Building Code or any of the applicable laws. There is no discretion to refuse to issue a permit due to a lack of compliance with conditions set out in development agreements or pursuant to the planning approvals. The appropriate means for dealing with non-compliance is through enforcement of the applicable provisions of the development agreement.
Establishing Charge Back Costs or Penalties
The City's current development agreements allow the City to assess any reasonable charges associated with the City having to complete developer works in the case of a default; however, these costs can only be on a cost recovery basis, which could include costs related to enforcement of the agreement but not costs that are punitive in nature.
Having noted the above, there are measures to accelerate completion of works, or seek greater compliance. Staff either are currently or will implement the following actions.
1. Aggressive Monitoring and Use of Securities (Current Practice Modified)
It is believed that the most effective method of guaranteeing compliance for works within timeframes identified in development agreements is to ensure that full securities are collected, that works are aggressively monitored for compliance and that securities are utilized whenever a developer is in default of completing the works. Public Works and Services inspection staff have, in the past two years, taken a more aggressive approach to ensure that the works are being completed, and in several instances have called upon securities to complete outstanding works. It should be noted that many of the sites that required more aggressive approaches have tended to be legacy files.
One factor that can greatly delay the speedy implementation of these works, should the City undertake them is the current requirement of the City's Purchasing By-law. An amendment to the Purchasing By-law that grants Delegated Authority to the Director, Infrastructure Services to bypass the normal procedures is recommended in order to award a contract would be effective in speeding up the City's ability to respond quickly when needed to complete works. Often the need for the City to undertake the work of developers comes early in the Fall and by the time normal purchasing procedures are carried out it becomes too late in the year (due to weather conditions) to complete the work. Permitting the Director, Infrastructure Services to single source the work, and most often it would be best to use the developer's contractor, greatly increases the turn-around time for the City to respond once the securities have been obtained. The Financial Services Branch is currently proposing to bring recommended amendments to the Purchasing By-law forward to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee in the very near future which will deal with this issue.
2. Adjust Completion Dates Where Early Servicing is Undertaken
For those developers who request Early Servicing, the City can stipulate that the commencement date, for the purposes of calculating specified completion dates of works, will be the date of the City's issuance of a Commence Work Notification and not the registration date of the development agreement. Currently, the time to complete works is measured from the time of registration of the development agreement. For example, the current subdivision agreement requires, underground services such as sewers to be completed within 24 months of registration of a subdivision agreement. Measuring the time for completion from the Commence Work Notification stage at Early Servicing versus at registration of the agreement would accelerate the overall time for completion. Staff are currently reviewing the Standard Conditions for Subdivision and Site Plan Control Agreements with the development community and the time for completion conditions will be raised with the view to compressing the current completion date provisions.
3. Compress Completion Timing for Underground Services
Staff intends to amend development agreements by compressing some of the standard completion timelines. Compressing the completion timeline for underground services such as municipal watermains or sewers, by six months, would have a net effect in accelerating the overall completion dates equally. This combined with the foregoing action, will accelerate delivery of major infrastructure works. The industry may indicate that implementing this will result in increased costs.
4. Withhold Early Servicing
The Director of Planning and Infrastructure Approvals will withhold Early Servicing, from those developers who have been delinquent in completing required works pursuant to development agreements.
5. Internal/External Parks Delivery Review
The Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services will initiate an internal and external review of the delivery of parks and park related works, and report back to Planning and Environment Committee with recommendations on the delivery of parks. This will include consideration to establishing timelines and triggers for the delivery of parks and park facilities.
CONSULTATION
City staff has discussed these issues with the development industry via the Development Industry/City Steering Liaison Committee and the Engineering Sub-Committee. Staff continues to engage the industry on these and related issues on an on-going basis. There has been no further consultation.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Costs associated with a developer default and a need for the City to complete the works will be at no cost to the City since the developer securities will be used to complete the work and staff time will be recovered as an administrative charge under conditions of the development agreement. Any shortfall will be invoiced to the developer and a refusal to pay will be applied to the property taxes for the land.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Council Motion
DISPOSITION
The Director, Financial Services Branch will amend the Purchasing By-law in order to grant Delegated Authority to the Director, Infrastructure Services to by-pass the normal requirements for awarding contracts where works need to be completed expeditiously.
DOCUMENT 1
COUNCIL MOTION
Moved by
Councillor J. Stavinga
Seconded by Councillor P. Feltmate
WHEREAS there are
longstanding concerns that public amenities and infrastructure, such as active
and passive parks, tot lots, pathways, road works and sidewalks in developing
neighbourhoods are not being completed in a timely manner or to the performance
specifications required by the City of Ottawa;
AND WHEREAS the collection and
hold back of securities appears to be an insufficient motivator to ensure land
developers and builders are completing these works;
AND WHEREAS these same land
developers and home builders continue to disregard or minimize the impact of
these incomplete works on the quality of life and enjoyment of those homeowners
who purchased homes in these subdivisions with the expectation that public
amenities and infrastructure would be built in a reasonable time period;
AND WHEREAS these
land developers and home builders are seeking from the City approvals for
additional housing units and building permits for the development of new
residential neighbourhoods, yet have not completed commitments within
previously approved subdivisions;
AND WHEREAS similar concerns
of incomplete and unsatisfactory works are also prevalent in the development of
commercial and industrial projects across the City;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that
City staff report to the appropriate Standing Committee and City Council in
early January 2006 on mechanisms that can be implemented to “give teeth” and
strengthen the ability of the City to ensure land developers and builders
deliver on commitments and performance specifications in existing subdivision
and site plan agreements in a timely manner;
AND that such measures may
include but not be limited to 1) denying any further planning approvals; 2)
denying early servicing agreements or conditional permits; 3) denying the
issuance of building permits; 4) establishing charge back costs or penalty
payments associated with the additional staff time required to ensure
developers are meeting their obligations.
response to council motion relating to concerns
in completing development related works
rÉPONSE À LA MOTION DU CONSEIL RELATIVEMENT AUX PRÉOCCUPATIONS SUR
L’ACHÈVEMENT DES TRAVAUX LIÉS
À L’AMÉNAGEMENt
ACS2006-PGM-APR-0088 CITY-WIDE
/
À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Councillor Janet Stavinga (Ward 6, Goulbourn) said she was delighted in seeing this Motion brought forward, and hearing that staff are committed to undertaking the study alluded to in the first part of the Motion. The Councillor asked that consideration be given to timing mechanisms, to ensure that public parks and other amenities are delivered on time. With regard to the second part of the Motion, Councillor Stavinga said it relates to deficiencies in cooperative mechanisms observed since amalgamation, and also acknowledged by city staff. She asked for the Committee’s support for the Motion.
The Committee Chair, Peter Hume, said he found it disappointing that community design plans do not identify the location of major recreation and other facilities. He felt this contributes to recreation playing catch-up with growth management. He wanted to know whether staff would identify these deliverables when reporting to Committee and Council. Ms. Josée Hélie (check title), Recreation branch, indicated that because of shortages in both resources and staffing, this was problematic, however she indicated that this could be addressed when staff report back to Committee in the fall of 2006.
At this point, the Committee considered the following:
Moved by P. Feltmate
WHEREAS there are long standing concerns
that public amenities and infrastructure, such as active and passive parks, tot
lots, and pathways in developing neighbourhoods are not being completed in a
timely manner or to the performance specifications required by the City of
Ottawa;
AND WHEREAS the collection and hold back of
securities appears to be an insufficient motivator to ensure land developers
and builders are completing these works;
Therefore be it resolved that Planning and
Environment Committee recommend to Council:
a) That City staff undertake expeditiously an
internal and external review of the delivery of parks and public amenities,
including but not limited to funding, development charges, delivery of
construction; as well as means to accelerate timely completion, including the
implementation of specific schedules for completion as part of the subdivision
conditions (eg: cleaning and greening must be completed within four months from
the issuance of the first building permit); and,
b) That, as part of this review, City staff
develop a more integrated approach to coordinate efforts between Planning &
Growth Management, Community & Protective Services and Public Works &
Services in the review of development applications, the development of
subdivision conditions, and the implementation of these conditions to ensure
the necessary servicing (eg: the provision of roads, water servicing, sanitary
and storm sewers) is in place to ensure the timely delivery of parks, and
c) that staff report back to the Planning and
Environment committee in the Fall of 2006.
CARRIED
Vice-Chair Feltmate, introduced a second
Motion, calling for the Province, as the appropriate level of government, to
review the provisions of the Planning Act which prevent municipalities from
delaying or denying planning applications to developers who appear to
repeatedly get away with not meeting their responsibilities. Speaking in support of her colleague’s Motion,
Councillor Stavinga expressed the hope that staff would move forward and
demonstrate strong resolve, with the support and backing of City Council.
Moved by P.
Feltmate
WHEREAS the provincial Planning Act
prevents the City of Ottawa from denying or delaying planning applications in
order to seek compliance on a separate planning file involving the same
developer;
AND WHEREAS the power to deny or delay
approval for planning applications when a developer has not completed work
required for another project would assist the City in ensuring roads, parks or
other infrastructure required as a condition of development approval is
completed,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, the City of Ottawa request that the Province of Ontario review provisions of the Planning Act preventing municipalities from denying or delaying planning applications in order to seek compliance on a separate planning file involving the same developer.
CARRIED