2. 2008 BUDGET MOTION 26/22 - REDUCTION OF SUPPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

MOTION NO 26/22 RELATIVE AU BUDGET DE 2008 - RÉDUCTION DE L’APPUI AU COMITÉ DE DÉROGATION

Committee recommendationS

That Council:

1. Approve the Planning branch resources for the Committee of Adjustment as presented in the 2008 budget;

2. Direct the Planning branch to clarify and refine the required resources with the Committee of Adjustment for the 2009 budget, including the option of a screening fee.

RecommandationS du Comité

Que le Conseil :

1. approuve les ressources de la Direction de l’urbanisme pour le Comité de dérogation, telles que présentées dans le budget de 2008;

2. enjoint la Direction de l’urbanisme de clarifier et de préciser les ressources requises pour le Comité de dérogation en vue du budget de 2009, y compris l’option de frais d’évaluation.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's memorandum Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 19 March 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0086).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 25 March 2008.

To Be Presented To			Date of Meeting
Committees
1.			Next or
2.			Next or
3.			Next or
Council			Next or
Other Divisions/Branches Consulted				Forwarded To
Financial Services Unit or Financial Planning				YES NO
Supply				YES NO
Legal				YES NO
Others				YES NO
Contacted / Consulted / Advised by Department
Elected Official(s) / Ward(s)
Public Groups / Individual(s)
Advertising/Notice
Regular Advertising Required		NO YES Date:
Municipal Act Notice Required		NO YES Date:
For Originating Department’s Use		Approved			Date
1.	Originating Division Director or Delegate - - Report is acceptable
2.	Financial Services Unit Manager, Financial Planning or Delegate (if applicable) – Report Recommended to General Manager
3.	Supply (if applicable) – Report Recommended to General Manager
4.	Other
5.	Program Manager
6.	Manager
7.	General Manager or Delegate – Report approved to leave Department

To / Destinataire	Chair and Members of Planning and Environment Committee/ Président et membres du Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement	File/N° de fichier: ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0086 - IPD
From / Expéditeur	Nancy Schepers Deputy City Manager/ Directrice municipale adjointe, Planning, Transit and the Environment / Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement	Contact/Personne ressource: John Moser, Director/Directeur, Planning Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme 613-580-2424, 28869 john.moser@ottawa.ca
Subject / Objet	2008 Budget Motion 26/22 - Reduction of Support to Committee of Adjustment/ Motion 26/22 relative au budget de 2008 - Réduction de l’appui au Comité de dérogation	Date : March 19, 2008 Le 19 mars 2008

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information to Planning and Environment Committee and Council regarding the ability to meet 2008 Budget objectives concerning appropriate staff service levels to the Committee of Adjustment.

The Planning Act authorizes City Council to appoint a Committee of Adjustment to give consideration to applications for variances to the performance standards of the City’s Zoning By-laws and applications to sever lands (consents). Once established, the Committee of Adjustment operates as a quasi – judicial tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act which sets out the scope of the Committee’s authority, the considerations that the Committee must have in making a decision on any application brought before it, and the process and procedures that must be followed with respect to giving notice to the public and with respect to its hearings. In a typical year, the Committee of Adjustment hears approximately 1,000 applications.

There is no requirement under the legislation for staff or Council to play any active role in the operations of the Committee of Adjustment. The Committee is however required to circulate any applications received to technical agencies who may have an interest and to the public. Planning, Transit and the Environment Department (PTE) is one technical agency to which Committee of Adjustment applications are circulated along with other City Departments, utility agencies and provincial agencies such as the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. Each agency directly responds with comments to the Committee of Adjustment on those applications of interest to the agency.

The role and responsibility of Committee of Adjustment members is to be informed on the policy context related to minor variance and severance applications considered by the Committee. This means that members should have an understanding of Official Plan policies as well as other relevant City policies. The role of Planning staff is to review and comment on Committee of Adjustment applications.

During the 2008 Budget deliberations, Council considered Motion 26/22 which stated under Option 36: Reduce staff support to the Committee of Adjustment by 40% (PTE) for an anticipated savings of $160,000, and referred it to Planning and Environment Committee.

To assist Committee in its deliberations, staff examined the original model and service levels established by Council on September 12, 2001 - http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2001/09-12/pdc/ACS2001-DEV-APR-0188.htm as well as the current service level commitment to the Committee that reflected some adjustments to the original service level. Staff then examined the implications of a reduced service level as envisaged by Motion 26/22.

1. Council Adopted Service Level Agreement - September 12, 2001

The level of service that was established post-amalgamation was predicated on the fact that Official Plans and By-laws of the former municipalities were legally in effect. There was a steep learning curve for the Committee as they became familiar with a vast array of policy documents, secondary plans, and various Zoning By-laws.

The Report contained in the above link outlines the accepted service level arrangements that Council had endorsed. It required the services of five full time planning FTEs to meet this mandate.

2. Current Service Level Commitment

Staff initiated changes to the service level to the Committee of Adjustment in 2007 to better respond to the challenges and volumes of applications that were being received and to ensure that PTE review was adding value to the process.

Staff’s role is to ensure that any development for which Committee of Adjustment approvals are requested responds to the City’s larger planning policy objectives related to intensification, compatibility, and urban design. In this regard, Council requires staff to review all applications submitted to the Committee in the context of the considerations that the Committee of Adjustment must have in assessing the merits of any application brought before it. Written comments are provided by staff where it is important for conditions to be imposed on any approval and/or to identify concerns or express objection to an application. Staff appear at the Committee to support positions established in written comments. Where the Committee of Adjustment approves an application that staff determines is contrary to Official Plan Policy and good planning, an appeal will be initiated to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Where staff is satisfied that the application is in accord with the considerations set out in the Planning Act, staff will not provide a comment and will not take a position for or against the application. It is the responsibility of the Committee to render a decision based on the evidence brought before it at the hearing.

This current service delivery model requires five full time FTEs. Staff currently attends all Committee of Adjustment meetings. This model does not provide for detailed comments on basic applications that comply with the Official Plan.

It is noted that the Committee of Adjustment has expressed concerns with this level of service, and discussions have taken place on the level of Planning staff engagement.

3. Service Level Reductions – Motion No. 26/22

To achieve the service level reduction proposed in the Motion, the current model of commenting on applications would be further refined. Planning staff will continue to provide a focussed, targeted review of applications to add value to the process.

Planning staff would provide written comments and/or conditions only on applications where there is a significant Council policy concern and where conditions must be attached to provide for orderly development. This will result in a reduction in the number of detailed written comments provided to the Committee.

Staff would attend Committee of Adjustment meetings where there was an objection, or a recommended dismissal by the Planning Branch. Staff would only be available to speak to these applications. There will be no change to the current policy in which the Department appeals only those decisions that are contrary to City policy.

This service level would envisage three full time Planning FTEs, a reduction of two full time Planning FTEs from the current model.

The Committee of Adjustment has clearly indicated that this is not a desired option. The Committee has indicated that without the necessary Planning staff support, they would have difficulty fulfilling their mandate. Further, it is anticipated that without Planning staff guidance on controversial applications, there is the potential of more applications being referred to the Ontario Municipal Board for final resolution.

4. Alternative Option to Motion 26/22

Senior Planning Branch staff met with the Secretary Treasurer and the Chairs of the three Panels of the Committee of Adjustment on March 12, 2008 to discuss the ramifications of this Motion. The Committee Chairs did not support the reduction of Planning staff support to the three panels of the Committee of Adjustment.

Staff proposed that the $160,000 Budget pressure be recovered through a “Screening Fee” that could be applied to every Committee of Adjustment application. Based on approximately 1,000 applications per year, this would be an additional fee of $160 per application to be collected upon submission for a total of $160,000. This is a similar approach to that the Conservation Authorities utilized to offset their Planning staff costs.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed this request and has indicated that it is the responsibility of PTE to discuss with Council how the service will be funded. The Committee indicated that “If Council decides to impose a separate surcharge, we would strongly recommend that the surcharge be fair, clearly justified and equitable.”

The Department believes that this “Screening Fee” is a means to maintain the level of service desired by the Committee of Adjustment. If approved, staff will work closely with the Committee of Adjustment to ensure the provision of an efficient and effective service.

Nancy Schepers

Nancy Schepers

2008 BUDGET MOTION 26/22 - REDUCTION OF SUPPORT TO COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

MOTION NO 26/22 RELATIVE AU BUDGET DE 2008 - RÉDUCTION DE L’APPUI AU COMITÉ DE DÉROGATION

ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0086 CITY-WIDE / À L’ECHELLE DE LA VILLE

Moved by D. Holmes:

That the Planning and Environment Committee approve the addition of this item for consideration by the Committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to Section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law.

CARRIED

The following correspondence was received and is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Memorandum dated November 30, 2007 from the Chair of the Committee of Adjustment

· Letter dated March 24, 2008 from Gary Ludington, Westboro Community Association

· Letter dated March 24, 2008 from Linda Hoad, Hintonburg Community Association

Chair Hume indicated the City Treasurer has confirmed an expectation that Committee would report back to Council on March 26, 2008 regarding the possible reduction of support to the Committee of Adjustment. He noted the options outlined in the memorandum provided by staff include imposing a screening fee of $160 per application.

Philip Brown and Sharanne Paquette, Committee of Adjustment (COA) spoke in support of maintaining a full planning staff complement of five full time equivalents. Mr. Brown spoke of the important role these planners play by providing an important and necessary link between Council, City policies and the COA, which cannot solicit its own planning evidence on applications. He noted City planners are an important resource, answering questions and educating the public and Committee in support of the City’s planning position on applications, which are becoming increasingly more complex. Mr. Brown stated that if a surcharge is imposed, it must be with the requirement of full reports and attendance by planners at all COA hearings. He outlined that the COA is neither for nor against a surcharge, as it is up to the City to decide how to provide and fund the services required by the COA. With respect to the amount of the surcharge, the delegation recommended it be based on clearly justified Planning branch costs for their review and input to ensure fairness to the average applicant.

Responding to questions, Ms. Paquette and Mr. Brown advanced the following:

· The services provided by the Planning branch were set out in an agreement when the COA was formed following amalgamation. At this time, the COA is requesting this same level of service.

· The funds to be raised by a potential screening fee or surcharge would cover the 40 per cent cut in service proposed.

· The COA reviews approximately 1000 applications per year.

· Current application fees are $880 for a minor variance and $1445 for a consent application. These fees are 100 per cent cost recovery to the COA.

· The screening charge is an additional cost for the average homeowner and could discourage applications to the COA.

· The COA can refuse an application if it is determined that it is not minor in nature. It relies heavily on the advice of Planning staff to make that determination.

· Planners also verify the information provided by applicants to ensure it is factual and up-to-date (e.g. current zoning).

· The current vacancies have impacted the level of service provided to the COA.

In response to a series of questions, John Moser, City Planner and Director of Planning, stated the following:

· A meeting took place with members of the COA to discuss the best way to deliver that service.

· Both sides agree on the necessary level of service.

· Staff is not proposing that the screening fee represent full cost recovery for Planning resources. The branch would continue to fund three planners and the additional funding would cover the additional two positions, which are currently vacant.

· The City is moving to 82 per cent cost recovery through application fees as of April 1, 2008.

· Some overlap does exist with respect to review of applications, as different planners review COA applications and Site Plan/Zoning applications. However, many applications before the COA do not require other applications.

Councillors Desroches and Harder cautioned Committee with respect to imposing an additional user fee without public notification or consultation. Councillor Leadman made reference to correspondence received by two community associations.

Councillor Hunter suggested the independence of the COA might be jeopardized with increased planning support. He also encouraged the Planning branch to reconsider how it assigns planners to review the numerous applications for one particular property.

Moved by P. Feltmate:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the Planning branch resources for the Committee of Adjustment as presented in the 2008 budget;

2. Direct the Planning branch to clarify and refine the required resources with the Committee of Adjustment for the 2009 budget, including the option of a screening fee.

CARRIED