REPORT
TO COMMITTEE(S) OF COUNCIL
INTERNAL ROUTING CHECKLIST
|
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning and Growth Management
|
DIVISION:
Building
Code Services/Business Integration Services
|
|
REPORT AUTHOR: Don
Brousseau
|
PHONE No.
41495
|
|
REPORT TITLE: Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law -
Delegation of Authority for Sign Minor Variances
|
|
REFERENCE No.
ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0190
|
|
DOCUMENT FILE NAME/PATH: D07-99-SB.DEL
|
APPLICANT:
Building
Code Services, 101 Centrepointe Drive, Nepean ON K2G 5K7
WARD: City-wide
CONTROVERSIAL:
Yes No
|
To Be Presented To
|
Date of Meeting
|
|
Committees
|
|
1.
Planning and Environment Committee
|
Next or November 10, 2009
|
|
2.
|
Next or
|
|
3.
|
Next or
|
|
Council
|
Next or November 25, 2009
|
|
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)
|
All
Ward Councils
|
|
Public Groups /
Individual(s)
|
Public
notification - city-wide
|
|
Advertising/Notice
|
|
|
Regular Advertising Required
|
NO YES Date:
|
|
Municipal Act Notice Required
|
NO
x YES Date: October 23, 2009
|
|
For Originating Department’s Use
|
Approved
|
Date
|
|
1.
|
Originating Branch Director or Delegate - -
Report is acceptable
|
Arlene Grégoire
|
October 23, 2009
|
|
2.
|
Financial Services Unit Manager, Financial
Planning or Delegate (if applicable) – Report Recommended to Deputy City
Manager
|
Gail Cote
|
October 16, 2009
|
|
3.
|
Supply (if applicable) – Report Recommended to
Deputy City Manager
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Other – Legal
|
Valérie Bietlot
|
October 16, 2009
|
|
5.
|
Program Manager
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Manager
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Deputy City Manager or Delegate – Report approved
to leave Department
|
Richard Kilstrom
For/John L. Moser
|
October 26, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report to/Rapport au :
|
3. PLANNING
AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, BUILDING CODE SERVICES BRANCH - DELEGATED AUTHORITY -
SIGN MINOR VARIANCES
URBANISME
ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE, SERVICES DU CODE DU BÂTIMENT- DÉLÉGATION DE
POUVOIRS - DÉROGATION
MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES
|
Committee
recommendationS
That Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the Permanent
Signs on Private Property By-law to authorize the Director of Building Code
Services to approve minor variances for signs provided that:
(a) the Director take into consideration the
process outlined in this report, and,
(b) the Ward Councillor of the ward in which
the sign, subject of the application for minor variance, is located supports
the minor variance and has not lifted the delegated authority.
2. Confirm the recommended Process for
review and consultation for sign minor variances as set out in this report.
RecommandationS DU Comité
Le
Conseil :
1. Approuve
une modification au Règlement sur les
enseignes permanentes sur les propriétés privées afin d’autoriser le
directeur des Services du code du bâtiment à approuver des modifications
mineures aux enseignes, à condition que :
(a) le
directeur prenne en considération de la procédure décrite dans ce rapport, et,
(b) le
conseiller du quartier dans lequel l’enseigne faisant l’objet d’une demande de
dérogation mineure se trouve appuie la dérogation mineure et n’ait pas révoqué
la délégation de pouvoirs.
2. Confirme
le processus recommandé à des fins d’examen et de consultation pour les
dérogations mineures au règlement sur les enseignes, comme le propose ce
rapport.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability,
dated 26 October 2009 (ACS2009-ICS-PGM-190).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 10 November 2009.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment
Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
26
October 2009 / le 26 octobre 2009
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy
Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe,
Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services
d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Sandra Garnett, Manager, Business
Integration Services
Building
Code Services Branch/Direction des services du code du bâtiment
(613)
580-2424 x 41544, sandra.garnett@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2009-ICS-PGM 0190
|
SUBJECT:
|
Planning and growth Management,
building code services BRANCH - DELEGATed authoritY - SIGN MINOR
VARIANCEs
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE,
SERVICES DU CODE DU BÂTIMENT - DÉLÉGATION DE POUVOIRS –-
DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR LES ENSEIGNES
|
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Planning
and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the Permanent Signs on Private
Property By-law to authorize the Director of Building Code Services to approve
minor variances for signs provided that:
(a) the Director take into consideration the
factors
process outlined
in this report, and,
(b) the Ward Councillor of the ward in which
the sign, subject of the application for minor variance, is located supports the
minor variance and has not lifted the delegated authority.
2. Confirm the recommended Process for review and consultation
for sign minor variances as set out in this report.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
recommande au Conseil :
1. D’approuver une
modification au Règlement sur les
enseignes permanentes sur les propriétés privées afin d’autoriser le
directeur des Services du code du bâtiment à approuver des modifications
mineures aux enseignes, à condition que :
(a)
le directeur prenne en considération les facteursde la procédure décrite décrits
dans ce rapport, et,
(b) le
conseiller du quartier dans lequel l’enseigne faisant l’objet d’une demande de
dérogation mineure se trouve appuie la dérogation mineure et n’ait pas révoqué
la délégation de pouvoirs.
2. De confirmer le
processus recommandé à des fins d’examen et de consultation pour les
dérogations mineures au règlement sur les enseignes, comme le propose ce
rapport.
BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2009, City Council approved the mid-term
governance report recommendation that decisions of a minor nature, currently
considered by City Council, be delegated to Committees of Council and/or some
staff. This report recommends a process
through which decisions related to Sign Minor Variance applications may be
delegated to the Director of Building Code Services under specific conditions.
DISCUSSION
Bill 130 granted City Council the ability to delegate
its powers and duties "to a person or body". This discretionary authority permits City
Council to delegate many of the administrative, legislative and quasi-judicial
powers subject to any limits and procedural requirements, including conditions,
approvals and appeals where applicable.
Within the mid-term governance report, City Council took measures to
improve governance as part of its Transformation Agenda set out in the
2007-2010 City Strategic Plan. The
expanded delegation of authority provides greater autonomy for the Ward
Councillors, greater authority to Standing Committees to be the final decision
maker on items within their mandate with the resulting reduction in the number
of transactional items at Council.
The report recommended that sign minor variance decisions be
delegated to the Standing Committee. It also recommended that the process for
the delegation of transactional items that relate to specific wards be
delegated to staff, in this case the Director of Building Code Services. In support of this delegation is the historical
performance of sign minor variance decisions considered by Standing Committees
and City Council since 2001 which demonstrates an average of 81 per cent of
sign minor variance applications were approved by the Standing Committee and
Council on the consent agenda. This
high approval rate is primarily the result of the review of the merits of the
required variance based on the objectives of the By-law and consultation with
the Ward Councillor, the community and the applicant (Document 1).
The process outlined in this report confirms that the current review
and consultation process with the community and the Ward Councillor, in the
majority of cases, has resulted in an agreed-to-resolution before the report is
tabled for consideration. The
amendments to the By‑law and the process outlined in this report will
ensure that the objectives of the governance report and the purpose and intent
of the By-law are respected.
Principles of Delegation
The scope of authority to make decisions is limited to varying the
site-specific physical parameters of a proposed sign(s). Requests to amend the By-law, for example to
permit a new category of sign as a legally permitted sign district wide, will
continue to be treated as a request for the Department to consider investigating
and recommending to the Standing Committee and Council an amendment to the
By-law. A report advising of the
exercise of the delegated authority and its compliance metrics will be
submitted to Council annually.
Under Delegated Authority
The Director will review sign minor variance applications pursuant
to the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law and will consider matters
related to:
a) sign type (e.g. ground or wall mounted, canopy, projecting,
billboard, street ad, directional information, among others),
b) sign face area/message centre area,
c) sign height,
d) setback from adjacent land use, in particular residential, and
e) illumination.
In exercising delegated authority, the consistent and equitable
application of Council policies and procedures will be assured by the following
conditions of approval. The Director,
when considering a minor variance application will, in addition to the
technical requirements of the by-law, take into consideration:
a) Design guidelines set out in the secondary plans and site plan
policies of the Official Plan;
b) Physical impediments or obstructions;
c) Topography;
d) Sign visibility;
e) Public safety;
f) Council approved urban design districts,
g) Potential impacts on existing adjacent land use;
h) Heritage Act objectives, if applicable,
i) the application of Ministry of Transport sign regulations; and
j) Whether the variance is desirable in the circumstances.
To ensure the above conditions are
satisfied, the Director will also consider:
·
The general intent of the by-law;
·
Comments from the Ward Councillor;
·
Community comments in response to a
technical circulation to area residents, businesses and community groups;
·
Site plan conditions (if applicable);
and
·
National Capital Commission objectives
for national monuments, ceremonial routes and world heritage sites (if
applicable).
Process
The following recommended process for review, consultation and
approval is based on current practice, taking into consideration the site plan
process model suggested in the mid-term governance report.
- A
summary of the sign proposal, including current regulation(s), the degree
of requested variation, a location plan and elevation drawings, is
circulated to area residents, the business community and the area Ward
Councillor(s) for review and comment.
- Notice
is provided to community within a minimum of 60 metres of the subject
property.
- Where
the property is designated heritage, the application is circulated to
heritage staff for comment.
- Where
the property is within 400 metres of a Provincial Highway, the prerequisite
approval by the Ministry of Transportation is required.
- Where
the sign is adjacent to or visible from a National Capital Commission
(NCC) Ceremonial route, specifically; Sussex Drive, Wellington Street,
Mackenzie Avenue or Elgin Street (between Laurier and Wellington Street)
and/or within 150 metres or a National Monument, pre-requisite approval by
the NCC is required.
- Where
the property has been subject to Site Plan Control or Part Lot Control
approval, the application is circulated to the area planner for input.
- For
proposed billboard signs, the area planner is consulted on Official Plan
and zoning objectives plus area land uses and structures that may mitigate
the imposition of a billboard.
·
Staff will work with the Ward
Councillor, stakeholders and the applicant to resolve issues and to identify an
acceptable solution.
·
Staff will prepare a Delegated
Authority Report, with suggested conditions of approval or a recommendation for
refusal (format attached as Document 2) and forward the report to the
Director.
·
The report will indicate whether the
applicant and the Councillor of the ward in which the sign subject of the
application will be located are in support of the conditions.
·
The Director has the option to waive
the exercise of delegated authority and require the application rise to the
Standing Committee.
·
Under delegated authority, the report
with the Director's recommendation(s) is circulated electronically to the area
Ward Councillor(s), who will have a period of 10 days to respond.
·
If the Ward Councillor(s) agrees, the
report will be signed by the Director or delegate and a notice of decision to
approve or reject the application sent to the Ward Councillor(s) and
stakeholders who requested notification.
·
If the Ward Councillor(s) does not
agree with the Director's recommendation(s), the Ward Councillor(s) may request
that delegation of authority be withdrawn and the application is sent to the
Standing Committee for a public meeting and decision.
·
The applicant will be advised of the
Councillor's intention to ask the Standing Committee to remove staff's
delegated authority.
·
The applicant and the Ward Councillor
will be notified of the decision to approve or reject the minor variance
application.
Lifting Delegated Authority
For applications approved under delegated authority, the decision by
the Director will be final and binding.
The Ward Councillor, in which the sign that is subject to the
application for minor variance is located, may request the delegated authority
be lifted and a report forwarded to the Standing Committee for public debate
and a decision. As sign minor variance
applications are site specific and relate only to the property in the Ward in
which it is located, it is recommended that the ability to lift delegated
authority be limited to the local Ward Councillor(s). The decision of the Standing Committee will be final and binding.
It is noted that where the staff recommendation is not in support of
the minor variance and the Ward Councillor is of the same mind, the applicant
will not be able to request the minor variance rise to the Standing
Committee. This would not support the
intent of the governance report to delegate this type of decision to staff, nor
its expected improvement to service delivery.
In addition, there is no appeal (for the applicant or public) vis a vis
approvals of sign variances, as the decision making authority respecting signs
flows from the Municipal Act and not
the Planning Act. Thus, as with the decision of the Standing
Committee being final and binding, so should the decision of the Director,
subject to the process and delegation of authority set out in the By-law.
As detailed earlier, amendments to the By-law have a citywide impact
and will continue to be considered through the full report process by the
Standing Committee and City Council.
As suggested in the mid-term governance report, if the Ward
Councillor does not provide concurrence and does not lift delegated authority
within the recommended timeline of 10 days (reference Document 4), the Director
will proceed with the recommendation under delegated authority. Furthermore, the
Director will have the option to waive the exercise of delegated authority and
require the application rise to the Standing Committee. This option may be exercised when, in the
opinion of the Director, the granting of the sign minor variance has the
potential to change the intent of the original provisions of the by-law, such
as a request to place a billboard within the established setback requirements
adjacent to a residential use.
Timelines
With the elimination of the need to schedule reports to the Standing
Committee and Council, the Department anticipates a reduction in the number of
weeks required to process an application from 17 to 11 weeks (Document 3). This will equate to an increase in the
Department's ability to process applications more efficiently and improve
service delivery for the applicant.
However, the change in the approval process will not affect the current
comprehensive application review process.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
Several Ontario municipalities were consulted to
determine best practices and whether the delegated authority provided under
Bill 130 has been exercised (Document 4).
Of the municipalities surveyed, Hamilton has delegated minor
variance decisions to the Director, or designate. The Director is authorized to approve or refuse sign minor
variance applications. In the Hamilton
model, the applicant may appeal the Director's decision to the Standing Committee. The report rises to City Council where the
decision of Council is final.
Departmental Comment
The Department suggests that the process established in Hamilton,
where the applicant has the option to appeal the decision rendered under
delegated authority, will result in a majority of applications refused by the
Director being appealed to the Committee and Council. The ability of the applicant to appeal where the Ward Councillor,
the community and the Director oppose the application is seen as negating any
advantages of delegating authority to staff.
City of Toronto
Toronto has retained a consultant to review all of the
pre-amalgamation sign by-laws. The result will be a new harmonized by-law to
reflect the needs of the city at large and the former municipalities.
Minor variance applications are currently considered by one of four
local Community Councils made up of Ward Councillors, each with full delegated
authority to approve or refuse applications with no opportunity for appeal
under the Municipal Act. With identified inequities in the
approvals granted by the four Community Councils, the study team is looking at
the feasibility of moving away from this model toward delegating to the
Director of Toronto Building, with an appeal process to a Committee of Council.
With this report considered in advance of Toronto finalizing and
presenting their sign by-law study recommendations, it is anticipated Toronto
will look to Ottawa in terms of best practices in the development of a suitable
delegation model.
Industry Consultations
A summary of this report was provided to three consultants who are
frequent clients.
A concern was raised that the process did not allow for the
applicant to appeal to the Standing Committee on applications for minor
variance where the applicant disagrees with the staff recommendation, even if
other stakeholders and the Ward Councillor(s) agree with the staff
recommendation.
Departmental Comment
If the applicant is given the option to lift delegated authority
where his/her application is refused both by staff and the Ward Councillor, it
is expected that a good portion of applications will proceed to Standing
Committee, thus negating any efficiencies obtained through the delegation of
authority process.
By comparison, the authority for City Council to render decisions
relating to site plan control and zoning applications is the Planning Act and these decisions are
appealable by the applicant to the Ontario Municipal Board. In such cases, it is preferable to try and
resolve outstanding issues at the Standing Committee and City Council. The authority for the Signs on Private
Property By-law is the Municipal Act
and the decision of Council is final and binding with no ability to
appeal. If the applicant were given the
option to appeal, with the Departmental recommendation supported by the Ward
Councillor, the community and the Department, it is doubtful the decision would
be overturned by the Standing Committee, while resulting in a lengthened
process.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
There are no
risk management or legal impediments to implementing the recommendations of
this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Summary
of City Council approved Sign Minor Variance Applications (2001‑2009)
Document
2 Minor Variance Approval Form
Document
3 Application Process Timeline
Breakdown
Document
4 Comparison of Other Municipalities'
Approval Procedures
DISPOSITION
Upon approval of the report, Legal Services to forward the required by-law
amendment to City Council for enactment.
Building
Code Services to revise the process, procedures and forms for applications
considered under delegated authority following Council approval of the by-law
amendment.
PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, BUILDING CODE
SERVICES BRANCH - DELEGATED AUTHORITY - SIGN MINOR VARIANCES
URBANISME ET GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE, SERVICES DU
CODE DU BÂTIMENT - DÉLÉGATION DE POUVOIRS – DÉROGATION MINEURE AU RÈGLEMENT SUR
LES ENSEIGNES
ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0190 city wide / à l’Échelle de la ville
The
Committee heard from the following public delegation on this matter :
Murray
Chown,
Novatech Engineering, began by voicing his general support for this initiative.
He acknowledged that sign minor variances were often relatively minor reports
that largely carry on consent at Committee.
However, he noted there is sometimes healthy debate on such issues,
referencing the case of the Royal Ottawa Hospital signage on Carling
Avenue. He expressed his concern with
the staff recommendation that applicants not have the ability to bring their
applications before the Standing Committee should they disagree with the
recommendation from staff and/or the position taken by the ward
Councillor.
Mr.
Chown noted that, while the report indicates staff consulted with
representatives of the industry, he and his firm were not one of those groups
that provided comments and suggested he was not alone in voicing this
concern. He challenged a statement made
in the report that, should applicants be given the option to lift delegated
authority, a good portion of applications would proceed to Standing Committee. He cited the example of site plan
applications and subdivision applications, where a vast majority are approved
under delegated authority, and when they are brought forward to Committee it is
at the request of the Councillor rather than the applicant. He acknowledged that there is no right to
appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board with regard to sign variances, but noted
that this is also the case with Cash-in-lieu of Parking applications, and there
is an ability to bring those matters before the Standing Committee.
Mr.
Chown noted that when filing an application for a sign minor variance, his firm
had found itself in the position of talking to the community and Ward
Councillor about other issues unrelated to the application, and suggested that
those issues could compromise the approval of the application. He proposed that
in such cases the only way to air those issues and get a fair decision is to
come before the Committee. He suggested
this would not result in a large number of applications coming forward to
Committee. In conclusion, he asked that sign minor variances be treated the
same way as almost every other delegation of authority to staff, in that they
be permitted to rise to Standing Committee.
In
response to questions from Councillor Feltmate, Arlene Grégoire, Chief Building
Official, confirmed that the staff-recommended process recognizes there will be
signs located in one ward that impact a neighbouring ward. In those instances
both Councillors, and both communities, are to be consulted.
In
response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Don Brousseau, Senior Policy
Officer, confirmed staff’s position that if the applicant can come to Committee
when staff refuses the variance, it negates the delegation of authority to
staff and the Ward Councillor. He noted
that in the case of Hamilton, where applicants do have this right, they have
since 2006 managed to resolve all their sign variances without having the item
rise to Standing Committee.
Councillor
Hunter spoke in concurrence with the point raised by Mr. Chown. He suggested
there should be a right of appeal to Standing Committee. He suggested that
different Councillors will act differently on these matters. As a result, there
is a danger of inconsistent application of the By-law and the allowable
variances, which is problematic even for minor matters. Councillor Hunter then introduced the
following motion:
That
recommendation two be amended to add the exception that, in the case where
agreement between the Ward Councillor, staff and the applicant is not reached,
the applicant may appeal to the Planning and Environment Committee.
Councillor
Hunter suggested this amendment would not negate the gains from the delegated
authority, proposing that there would be gains due to the time saved by avoiding
the Committee process in cases where all parties agree. He noted that with the current process, even
when there is no disagreement, it still takes months for the item to come to
Committee, resulting in a waste of time and cost for the applicant. He suggested it was only fair to have the
right of appeal and resolve disagreements in a public forum. In conclusion, he
urged Committee to support his amendment.
Moved
by G. Hunter:
That
recommendation two be amended to add the exception that, in the case where
agreement between the Ward Councillor, staff and the applicant is not reached,
the applicant may appeal to the Planning and Environment Committee.
LOST
Yeas
(1) G. Hunter
Nays
(5) M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, P. Feltmate, P. Hume
Committee
then approved the report recommendation as presented.
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend
that Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the Permanent
Signs on Private Property By-law to authorize the Director of Building Code
Services to approve minor variances for signs provided that:
(a) the Director take into consideration the
process outlined in this report, and,
(b) the Ward Councillor of the ward in which
the sign, subject of the application for minor variance, is located supports
the minor variance and has not lifted the delegated authority.
2.
Confirm
the recommended Process for review and consultation for sign minor variances as
set out in this report.
CARRIED
G.
Hunter dissented
