Report to/Rapport au :
Comité de l'urbanisme
and / et
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales
23 February 2012 / le 23 fevrier
2012
Submitted
by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, Directrice
municipale adjointe, Planning and
Infrastructure/Urbanisme et Infrastructure
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : John L. Moser, General Manager/Directeur général,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424 x
28869, John.Moser@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
2011 Planning and Growth management department Year-end report |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
rapport de fin
d’exercice de 2011 du service |
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning
Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee receive this report
for information.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l'urbanisme et le Comité de l'agriculture et des affaires rurales prennent
connaissance du présent rapport.
BACKGROUND
The year-end report for the Planning and Growth
Management Department is an opportunity to provide both the Planning Committee
and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee with information on the past
year’s activity for Planning Applications, non-Building Code related Permits
and Easement and Inspection activity within the Department’s jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Planning Applications in Total
In 2011 the total number of Planning
Applications received was fairly consistent with 2010. 639 submissions were received in 2011, versus
642 for 2010, as illustrated in the chart below. This continues the recovery from 2009, when
only 535 applications were received.
The
total number of Planning Applications processed in 2011 was five percent less
than in 2010 – 530 versus 503, as indicated in the chart below. Applications processed includes those
received in 2011 and previous years, and includes those that were
cancelled/terminated by the City or withdrawn by the applicant.
Delegated Authority Planning
Applications
Of the 639 applications in total received in 2011,
delegated-authority applied to 557 of those – about the same as for 2010, as
shown on the chart below.
Significantly, Site Plan Control applications,
which made up a large part (44%) of the delegated‑authority applications
received, fell by 19% from 2010 – from 305 to 246. That contrasts with a significant 33%
increase shown in 2010 over the previous year.
As indicated in the chart
below, in 2011 decisions were rendered for 392 applications under the delegated
authority of the General Manager, Managers, Program Managers or File Leads of
the Development Review Branches.
Production in 2011 was somewhat less than 2010, when 419 applications were
processed through delegated authority.
The Urban Development
Review area processed the greatest number of delegated authority applications through
to a decision with 167, followed by the Suburban area with 135 and the Rural area
with 80. This generally reflected the
volume of applications received in each area.
The 228 Site Plan
Control applications processed in 2011 made up 60% per cent of the total dealt
with through delegated authority. Two Site
Plan Control application had delegated authority removed and were considered by
Committee.
The table below is an
analysis of the timelines for processing Manager-delegated Site Plan Control
applications with public consultation, from the time that the application is determined
to be adequate for review until a decision is rendered.
Thirty-four per cent
of Manager-delegated Site Plan Control applications, requiring public
consultation, were processed to a decision within the 74 day Council-approved target
timeline in 2011. This is slightly
higher than the 32 per cent achieved in 2010.
In 2011, a further 20 per cent were processed within 30 days after the
targeted timeline, for a combined total of 54 per cent dealt with on-time or
within 30 days of the target.
Site Plan
Control – Manager-Delegated with Public Consultation
Processing Time;
Target - 74 days (excluding inadequate and on hold time)
|
Year |
On/Below Target |
+ 30 Days from Target |
+ 60 Days from Target |
+ 90 Days from Target |
Beyond 90 Days from Target |
Total Number Processed |
|
2011 |
34% |
54% |
76% |
83% |
100% |
97 |
|
2010 |
32% |
62% |
82% |
87% |
100% |
94 |
|
2009 |
43% |
74% |
84% |
89% |
100% |
98 |
|
2008 |
39% |
64% |
78% |
87% |
100% |
102 |
|
2007 |
29% |
67% |
80% |
86% |
100% |
110 |
Site
Plan Control applications requiring public consultation typically have a
greater chance of not meeting timelines because of the level of interest within
the community and the need to spend additional time to resolve issues through
community consultation. The focus of
these types of applications is on resolving issues and encouraging positive
results both for the community and the applicant.
However, it is
recognized that notwithstanding this, Council’s targets are not being achieved
and that applicants are not provided with a realistic timeframe for the
processing of a Site Plan Control application.
The Department recently undertook an analysis of the delays in the
application review process and the resulting changes, plus ongoing analysis and
improvements, should be felt during 2012 and thereafter.
As indicated in the
table below, Staff-delegated Site Plan Control applications processed in 2011
surpassed the results for 2010, with 51 per cent dealt within the target timeline
in 2011 versus 38 per cent for 2010. A
further 29 per cent were processed in 2011 within 30 days after the targeted
timeline, for a combined total of 80% per cent dealt with on-time or within 30
days of the target.
Site Plan Control –
Staff-delegated without Public Consultation
Processing Time;
Target - 42 days (excluding inadequate and on hold time)
|
Year |
On/Below Target |
+ 30 Days from
Target |
+ 60 Days from
Target |
+ 90 Days from
Target |
Beyond 90 Days from
Target |
Total Number Processed |
|
2011 |
51% |
80% |
92% |
98% |
100% |
51 |
|
2010 |
38% |
75% |
88% |
94% |
100% |
68 |
|
2009 |
54% |
89% |
96% |
98% |
100% |
63 |
|
2008 |
57% |
84% |
90% |
96% |
100% |
48 |
|
2007 |
49% |
89% |
95% |
100% |
100% |
65 |
A change was adopted by Council in November 2011 to the Site Plan
Control procedures that should lead to improved timelines. If concurrence is obtained from the
Applicant, but not from the Ward Councillor within seven business days of forwarding
the draft conditions of approval, a report dealing with the application will be
forwarded to the next Planning
Committee or Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee meeting that meets
Council’s notice of public meeting provisions.
It is anticipated that the continued refinement of the mandatory
Pre-application Consultation process, launched in February 2010, as well as the
changes related to the implementation of One‑Stop Service improvements,
will provide more assurance of processing the applications within the on-time
targets in the future.
Non-delegated
Authority Planning Applications
The slight 4% decrease in delegated-authority
Planning Applications submitted in 2011 contrasts with the 30% increase in
non-delegated applications received, as shown in the graph below - these are
required by the Planning Act to be
dealt with by Planning Committee or the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee
and/or Council.
Zoning By-law Amendment applications, which made
up 77% of the 155 non-delegated Planning Applications received in 2011, rose significantly
from the 119 submitted in 2010. This
reverses the declining trend seen since 2007, as illustrated in the chart above.
The chart below
indicates that 108 non-delegated Planning Applications were dealt with by
Committee or Council in 2011, slightly less than for 2010, when 118 applications
were processed.
The 40 non-delegated
application reports forwarded to Committee or Council by the Urban Development
Review area surpassed the 29 and 25 processed respectively by the Suburban and
Rural areas. As with delegated-authority
applications, this was consistent with the volume of applications received for
each area.
The table below
reflects the timelines for processing Zoning By-law Amendment applications from
the time they are deemed complete until consideration by Council (Planning
Act target 120 days).
Zoning By-law Amendments
Processing Time; Target - 120 days (excluding
incomplete and on hold time)
|
Year |
On/Below Target |
+ 30 Days from Target |
+ 60 Days from Target |
+ 90 Days from Target |
Beyond 90 Days from Target |
Total Number |
|
2011 |
56% |
81% |
86% |
93% |
100% |
85 |
|
2010 |
65% |
83% |
87% |
91% |
100% |
71 |
|
2009 |
62% |
81% |
90% |
93% |
100% |
68 |
|
2008 |
57% |
77% |
86% |
90% |
100% |
129 |
|
2007 |
54% |
81% |
88% |
93% |
100% |
126 |
While the percentage of rezoning applications
reaching an on-time decision in 2011 was less than for 2010, at 56% versus 65%;
85 rezoning applications were processed, reflecting an increase from the 71
reviewed in 2010. A further
25 per cent were processed in 2011 within 30 days after the targeted timeline,
for a combined total of 81 per cent dealt with on-time or within 30 days of the
target.
The average processing time for Zoning By-law
Amendment reports reaching Council was about the same as for last year - 131 days
in 2011, versus 129 in 2010.
Other Application and Permit Activity
Heritage Applications and Restoration Grants
A total of 16 heritage applications were dealt
with by Committee and Council in 2011. These applications include alterations
to individually-designated heritage buildings designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as well as
alterations, demolitions or new construction in heritage conservation
districts, designated under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act (OHA).
Two heritage designations of individual
properties under Part IV of the OHA were approved by City Council. The
designation of the Clemow East Heritage Conservation District, containing 45
properties, was also approved by City Council.
Thirty-five matching heritage grants for
building restoration were approved with a value of $147,180.
Requests to Release or Reduce Securities
The City receives securities from developers
that are associated with work being undertaken through early servicing or
development agreements and letters of undertaking. These securities ensure that the work is
undertaken in accordance with the conditions of approval. Once part or all of the work has been completed,
the developer can request partial or full releases of the securities that the
City is holding. The release or
reduction of securities is carried out collaboratively with the Development
Inspections Unit. During 2011, 485 requests
were made to reduce the securities that the City is holding, as compared with
585 in 2010. This resulted in the
release of over $102 million in securities to developers – significantly more
than in 2010, when $71 million was released.
Reimbursement Program for Development-Related
Fees for Charitable and Non-Profit Organizations
In response to the growing number of requests
from charitable and non-profit organizations for financial relief from
development-related fees, a program to provide reimbursements was approved by
Council in October 2009. This returns to
those organizations up to 50% of application fees for applications such as Site
Plans, Zoning By-law Amendments and Cash-in-lieu of Parking, as well as for
Building and Demolition Permits.
The Program was launched on the City’s website
in June of 2010, and initially received great interest from charitable and
non-profit organizations from across the city.
In 2011, three requests for reimbursements were received, as detailed in
the chart below. The lack of submissions
was due in large part to the decisions by these organizations to delay and/or
postpone several major initiatives over the course of 2011, or delays in
completion of their projects.
|
Organization |
Project |
Amount Reimbursed |
|
Orleans-Cumberland
Community Resource Centre |
Renovation
and fit-up of new facility. |
$6,691 |
|
Paroisse
Saint-Thomas d’Aquin |
New
accessible entrance for church and community hall |
$804 |
|
Ottawa
Humane Society |
Construction
of new facility (portion not covered by Council motion) |
$27,340 |
Based on information received, we are
anticipating submissions in 2012 from the YMCA-YWCA, the Metcalfe Agricultural
Society, and the Wabano Centre for a total of approximately $150,000.
Permits and Approvals
A major set of activities of the Department is
the review and issuance of various permits and approvals, related to Private Approaches,
Road Modifications and Encroachments, as described in the tables below.
|
Private Approach
Permits |
|||
|
Year |
Culverts |
Private Approach |
Temporary |
|
2011 |
120 |
91 |
13 |
|
2010 |
152 |
114 |
23 |
|
2009 |
172 |
124 |
21 |
During 2011, one application for a waiver to
the Private Approach By-laws and 15 applications for waivers to the
Encroachment By-law were received and processed.
|
Road Modification
Approvals (RMAs) and Circulations |
|||
|
Year |
Development-related
RMAs |
Network Modification
RMAs |
Circulations |
|
2011 |
26 |
2 |
938 |
|
2010 |
13 |
3 |
1,033 |
|
2009 |
12 |
7 |
740 |
|
Encroachments,
Over-dimensional Vehicles and Home Builder Signs/Banners |
||||||
|
|
Encroachments |
Over-dimensional
Vehicle |
Home Builder Signs |
|||
|
Year |
Construction-related |
Customer Service Box |
Outdoor Patio |
Café Seating |
|
|
|
2011 |
2,317 |
16 |
73 |
14 |
1,318 |
28 |
|
2010 |
1,826 |
9 |
74 |
3 |
1,191 |
31 |
|
2009 |
1,794 |
13 |
72 |
n/a |
1,097 |
30 |
Information regarding building permit applications and
permits is reported separately in a report to Council every year, as required
by the Building Code Act. In addition the department deals with Sign
Variances, Naming or Renaming Private Roadways, Municipal Addressing
Applications and other Non-Building Code Related Permits, as described below.
Permanent Sign Minor Variances on Private Property
Delegated authority applies to minor variance for
permanent signs, if the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of
the by-law. In 2011, 15 applications for
sign variances were processed under the delegated authority of the Director of
Building Code Services, and one was considered by Planning Committee.
Naming or Renaming Private Roadways
The Director of Building Code Services may
authorize the naming or renaming of a private roadway under the Private
Roadways By-law. If there are objections
received to the naming or renaming, a report is forwarded to Planning Committee
or the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and City Council for a
decision. In 2011, seven applications
were processed under delegated authority.
Applications
under the Municipal Addressing By-law
The Director, Building Code Services may
authorize the naming of a highway, change in the name of a highway, assign
civic numbers and change civic numbers.
In 2011, five street name changes were
processed at Council’s direction. The
following street/partial street names were changed in 2011:
×
Liard
Street to Hartsmere Drive
×
Part
of Richmond Road to Robertson Road
×
Part
of Richmond Road to Old Richmond Road
×
Bent
Oak Street to Slattery’s Field Street
×
Blackburn
Bypass to Brian Coburn Boulevard
Non-Building Code Related Activity
The following table summarizes all of the Non-Building
Code Related permit applications received by the Building Code Services Branch
in 2011.
|
Activity |
Applications Received 2011 |
|
Pool Enclosure Permit |
813 |
|
Permanent Signs on Private Property Permit (includes ground, wall, projecting, canopy, development, billboard and street ad signs) |
531
applications/1,248 individual signs |
|
Zoning and Building Code Compliance Report |
642 |
|
Release of Agreement Application (includes site plan, subdivision and other development agreements) |
21 |
|
Sign Minor Variance Application |
15 |
The following chart illustrates the trend lines
for the applications noted above. Of note, Pool Enclosure Permit applications
tend to reflect the construction activity levels, with more applications in
years where more single detached residential units are constructed; and the
weather, with hot dry summers pushing the sale of pools up and accordingly, the
number of pool enclosures. In 2011,
there was a shift from single detached dwelling units to multi-residential
dwelling units and the summer of 2011 was cooler and rainier than previous
years, as noted in a slight reduction in Pool Enclosure permit applications. It
is also noted that the enforcement of the Pool Enclosure By-law is on a
complaints basis, which may result in pools being installed without the proper
enclosures. More public awareness
initiatives may be necessary to increase voluntary compliance.
For sign permits, construction activity (new
strip malls, commercial developments etc.), growth in the commercial sector and
the reliance on voluntary compliance, all influence the number of
applications. Sign Variance applications
also are private-sector driven and any spike in the number of these
applications usually signals a new trend in advertising or sign technology and
the resultant need to modify the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law to
accommodate these pressures. The number
of Sign Variance applications following a by-law update drops significantly,
until the next time new technology or trends in advertising trigger an increase
in Sign Variance applications.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no rural implications associated with
this report.
CONSULTATION
The report deals with administrative matters
and as such public consultation was not undertaken.
A copy of the report was sent to the Greater
Ottawa Homebuilders Association and the Federation of Citizens' Associations.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
This is a
City-Wide information report only.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
There are
no legal implications associated with this report.
RISK
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no risk management implications
associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial
implications associated with this information report.
ACCESSIBILITY IMPACT
There are no
accessibility implications associated with this report.
TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS
There are no
technology implications associated with this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
This report
falls within the scope of the Strategic Plan objective for Service Excellence,
specifically, to improve operational performance.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
There are
no supporting documents.
DISPOSITION
This is an
information report only.