ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE NEW COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

(September 24, 1999)

Purpose:

This further report was requested by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting held on September 13, 1999.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the August 26, 1999 Report entitled "Organizational structure for the new Committee of Adjustment (All Wards)" be adopted.

Committee Reference:

The Planning and Transportation Committee requested that an information report be prepared for its meeting of October 4, 1999 regarding:

-a compilation of samples of planning reports currently used with a view towards a standard citywide format;

-how the proposed new citywide Committee process could be structured to allow for evening meetings where requested;

-the right of a Councillor to defer a hearing for additional community input;

-amending the basic qualifications for appointment; and

-what increase of application fees would be required to accommodate increased membership on the Committee of Adjustment panels.

Comments:

Format for Planning Staff Reports:

Attached to this report are samples of the current staff report formats used by the Committee of Adjustment offices of the four planning Districts. I will be reporting further to your Committee on harmonized administration operations, including the new citywide standard Committee of Adjustment templates for notices, decisions and correspondence. A sample of the standard planning staff report template will be included.

Evening Meetings When Requested/Bump Up:

Three of the six Committees of Adjustment for the former municipalities hold day meetings. While the requirements of the Planning Act can be met by either daytime or evening meetings, daytime meetings provide the greatest flexibility in scheduling, allows for more applications to be heard during reasonable hours of the day and the best use of staff resources for the Committee of Adjustment. Evening meetings would mean additional staff overtime costs, limit the number of applications which can be heard and reduce the number of complaints received regarding late starts and the late hours of consideration of some applications.

The Committee of Adjustment schedule is set a minimum of six months in advance. Additional scheduled Committee of Adjustment evening meetings to accommodate a bump-up provision would require double notification, possibly add confusion for the community and add costs to the City.

Deferral Requests by Councillors:

A City Councillor is entitled to write to or appear before and address a Committee of Adjustment and make any request any other person may make, including a deferral request to allow the Councillor more time to obtain further community input. This is the current practice in all Districts and has worked well.

Council Policy - Basic Qualifications for Appointment:

City Council at its meeting of April 13, 14 and 15, 1999 adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 3 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team entitled "Policy for Citizen Appointments through the Nominating Committee and the Corporate Services Committee". This policy is repeated in Appendix 3 of my previous report, using the exact wording adopted by Council. Any amendments to this policy require Council approval

Impact on Fees Schedule of Additional Committee Members:

City Council has not yet set the honoraria rates for agencies, boards and commissions, including the Committee of Adjustment. Currently there is a significant difference between the honorarium of the six Committees of Adjustment for the former municipalities. The total of all honoraria allocated by the former six municipalities is over $185,200, which if averaged for 22 members, allows an honorarium of about $8,500 per year per member. Should City Council decide to appoint, for example, a total of 30 members at the averaged honorarium the additional cost would be $68,000 per year. As about 3,500 applications are dealt with citywide annually, the additional members honoraria would add about $20 to each applicant's fee. This does not include additional associated costs such as Members' mileage, expenses and administrative costs.

A copy of the August 26, 1999 report, this report and the times and date for the October 12, 1999 Community Council discussions have been sent to all resident associations across the City and to development industry representatives.

Contact Name:

Tony Evangelista

Manager Committee of Adjustment, North District

Phone: 395-7128Fax: 395-7155

City Clerk, Planning and Transportation Committee

(September 14, 1999)

Recommendation:

The Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting on September 13, 1999 referred Recommendation (2) to (6) of the report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and the following motions, to Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its November 1, 1999 meeting:

By Councillor McConnell:

"That Recommendation 2(iii) of the report (August 26, 1999) be amended to clarify that it is the Committee of Adjustment that appoints a City-wide Chair, so as to read:

"2(iii)the Committee of Adjustment appoint a City-wide Chair to provide leadership for the Committee and each Panel appoint a District Chair to guide the process at the local level"; and"

By Councillor Berger

"That the membership of the Committee of Adjustment consist of 5 members, chaired by the Secretary-Treasurer."

The Committee reports, for the information of Community Councils, having requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to:

(1)report to the next meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on October 4, 1999, and to the Community Councils, if possible:

a.with a compilation of sample staff reports utilized by each of the Committees of Adjustment for review by the Planning and Transportation Committee with a view to recommending a standard format;

b.on how the process could be structured to allow for evening meetings where requested;

c.on a "bump-up" provision for evening meetings made at the request of a City Councillor;

d.on the right of a City Councillor to defer a hearing for additional community input;

e.on amending the second "Basic Qualification for Appointment to the Committee of Adjustment" contained in Appendix 3 of the report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services by deleting the words "and/or municipal property taxpayer in", so as to read:

"Any person applying for appointment shall be, and must maintain status throughout their term of office as:

-a resident of the City of Toronto

-a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant

-at least 18 years of age"

f.on a Committee of Adjustment fee increase to accommodate an increase in the membership of the panels, as follows:

-north, east and west panels to 7 members with 5 members sitting per session; and

-south district panel to 9 members; and

(2)give a presentation on the organizational structure for the new Committee of Adjustment to the Planning and Transportation Committee when it considers this matter and the comments from the Community Councils.

Background:

At its meeting on September 13, 1999, the Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the attached report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing an organizational structure for a new city-wide Committee of Adjustment, as requested by City Council prior to proceeding with the nomination process and subsequent appointments, advising that the City Solicitor will submit the draft enabling by-law which is required by the Planning Act, and recommending that:

(1)this report be referred to the Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its November 1, 1999 meeting;

(2)Council approve the following structure for the new Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto:

(i)the Committee operate as four District Panels corresponding with the four geographic Districts through which City Planning services are delivered;

(ii)the Committee comprise a total of 22 members assigned and nominated as follows:

North District:5 membersall nominated by North York Community Council;

South District:7 membersall nominated by Toronto Community Council;

East District:5 members2 nominated by East York Community Council; and

3 nominated by Scarborough Community Council;

West District:5 members2 nominated by York Community Council; and

3 nominated by Etobicoke Community Council;

(iii)the Committee appoint a city-wide Chair, to provide leadership for the Committee and each Panel appoint a District Chair to guide the process at the local level;

(iv)each Hearing be conducted by three of the respective District Panel members, the sitting members to be assigned on a rotational basis;

(v)each Committee Hearing be held during regular business hours; and

(vi)the Committee's four District Panels conduct Hearings in the following four locations: Toronto City Hall and the North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke civic centres;

(3)the City Solicitor be requested to prepare a by-law for presentation to and approval by City Council to constitute one Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto and to delegate approval authority to hear applications for minor variance/permission and for the creation of new lots by consent, as permitted by the Planning Act;

(4)City Council direct the City Clerk's Division, Corporate Services Department to commence the process for nominations by the Community Councils;

(5)the Committee of Adjustment, when constituted, be requested to appoint the City Planning Executive Director/Chief Planner or delegate(s) as its Secretary-Treasurer; and

(6)the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a report to City Council, at the beginning of its next term, evaluating the new Committee of Adjustment's organizational structure.

Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

(August 26, 1999)

Purpose:

This report recommends the organizational structure for a new city-wide Committee of Adjustment, as requested by City Council prior to proceeding with the nomination process and subsequent appointments. The City Solicitor will submit the draft enabling by-law which is required by the Planning Act.

Financial Implications:

No additional costs would result from the recommendations in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)this report be referred to the Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its November 1, 1999 meeting;

(2)Council approve the following structure for the new Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto:

(i)the Committee operate as four District Panels corresponding with the four geographic Districts through which City Planning services are delivered;

(ii)the Committee comprise a total of 22 members assigned and nominated as follows:

North District: 5 membersall nominated by North York Community Council; South District: 7 membersall nominated by Toronto Community Council;

East District: 5 members2 nominated by East York Community Council and

3 nominated by Scarborough Community Council;

West District: 5 members2 nominated by York Community Council; and

3 nominated by Etobicoke Community Council;

(iii)the Committee appoint a city-wide Chair, to provide leadership for the Committee and each Panel appoint a District Chair to guide the process at the local level;

(iv)each Hearing be conducted by three of the respective District Panel members, the sitting members to be assigned on a rotational basis;

(v)each Committee Hearing be held during regular business hours; and

(vi)the Committee's four District Panels conduct Hearings in the following four locations: Toronto City Hall and the North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke Civic Centres;

(3)the City Solicitor be requested to prepare a by-law for presentation to and approval by City Council to constitute one Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto and to delegate approval authority to hear applications for minor variance/permission and for the creation of new lots by consent, as permitted by the Planning Act;

(4)City Council direct the City Clerk's Division, Corporate Services Department to commence the process for nominations by the Community Councils;

(5)the Committee of Adjustment, when constituted, be requested to appoint the City Planning Executive Director/Chief Planner or delegate(s) as its Secretary-Treasurer; and

(6)the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a report to City Council, at the beginning of its next term, evaluating the new Committee of Adjustment's organizational structure.

Council Reference:

City Council requested this report at its meeting of April 13, 14, and 15, 1999 when it adopted, with amendments, the February 10, 1999 report, Policy for Citizen Appointments through the Nominating Committee and the Corporate Services Committee. At that meeting, City Council also terminated the terms of appointees to any Agency, Board, Commission or Tribunal of a former City effective December 31, 1999. As well, the Chief Administrative Officer was requested to report to the Administration Committee at its September, 1999 meeting on those committees requiring an extension of appointments to facilitate the nomination process.

My report on New Practices for the Review of Development Applications, which will be considered by Planning and Transportation Committee at its October 4, 1999 meeting, also recommends submission of an organizational structure report for the Committee of Adjustment.

Background (see Appendix 1):

The Committee of Adjustment's role is to provide for some flexibility in existing zoning controls, to facilitate infill redevelopment through the severance process and to sort out land title issues. All former municipalities had delegated the minor variance/permission and consent approval authority to their Committees of Adjustment, with the exception of the former City of Scarborough where consents are delegated to the Director of Community Planning, East District.

The Planning Act requires that citizen members of the Committee be appointed for the term of Council. To facilitate transition following amalgamation, the six Committees of Adjustment for the former municipalities, comprising a total of 34 members, have continued to operate until their successors are appointed.

City-wide, there are over 3,600 applications made to the Committee of Adjustment each year. For example, during the month of May 1999 (mid-point of peak season), the six existing Committees considered 286 applications and facilitated construction of 3 apartment buildings (600 units), over 170 new homes, 120 alterations/additions to existing homes and 40 commercial or industrial projects.

Discussion:

A critical review was conducted of the organizational structure in place for the six Committees of the former municipalities. Given the common legislative base, the Planning Act, the difference in practices, resources and service levels are remarkable, but understandable as varied approaches were developed over time in the cultures of the former cities. Staff proposals are set out below for harmonizing the organizational structure for the new Committee of Adjustment city-wide. These proposals provide a framework for development of common operations to offer consistent customer service levels across the new City.

1.Composition of the new Committee (see Appendix 2):

It is recommended that the new Committee be divided into four District Panels. The four Panels will correspond geographically and administratively to the four Districts through which all Community Planning services are delivered.

It is recommended that a total of 22 members be appointed to the Committee of Adjustment city-wide. Given the volume of applications received by the City, this is the minimum number of members required to conduct sufficient Hearings to consider each complete application within 30 days of its receipt. Each member's time commitment will involve about 18 Hearings per year with 15 to 20 hours per month.

The Planning Act requires a minimum of 3 Committee members to hear each application, as currently practiced in the South District. It is recommended that this approach be implemented city-wide. Although each District Panel would comprise 5 or 7 members, only three members would sit, as assigned on a rotational basis, at any given Hearing. The majority of applications considered by the Committee involve small scale projects and three members are sufficient to facilitate an open and fair decision making process. In terms of community involvement, a smaller panel is also less intimidating. The East and West District panels will consider applications under the by-laws of their two respective former municipalities (East York and Scarborough, Etobicoke and York) on the same Hearing agenda.

The following allocation for member nominations is recommended to reflect fair community representation:

North District: 5 membersall nominated by North York Community Council

South District: 7 membersall nominated by Toronto Community Council

East District: 5 members2 members nominated by East York Community Council, and

3 members nominated by Scarborough Community Council

West District: 5 members2 members nominated by York Community Council, and3 members nominated by Etobicoke Community Council.

The Committee will appoint a Chair to provide city-wide leadership as harmonization continues. Each Panel will appoint a District Chair to guide the members at the local level.

2.Time and Location of Hearings:

It is recommended that all District Panels conduct Hearings during regular business hours. This is the current practice for the committees of the former municipalities of Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke. Experience has shown that the majority of stakeholders are satisfied with daytime Hearings. This will provide consistency city-wide, reduce peak season backlogs by allowing more applications to be heard at any one Hearing and ensure the most efficient use of limited staff resources.

It is recommended that Hearings for the East District and West District Panels be conducted at the Scarborough and Etobicoke civic centres, respectively. This will improve customer service for the East York and York communities by providing access to two hearings per month instead of one, while maintaining application intake and planning information services in the field offices located in the East York and York civic centres.

3.Member Qualifications:

The minimum qualifications for candidates, as adopted by City Council, are listed in Appendix 3. I am recommending two additional qualifications for Committee of Adjustment members, as follows:

(i)any person applying for appointment shall have an understanding of municipal government and community planning processes; and

(ii)any person applying for appointment shall have a broad awareness of the range of community concerns and planning issues in the District for which s/he is a Panel candidate.

At the time of application, each candidate should be required to indicate which District Panel s/he is applying for. This requirement should be clearly stated in the material used for recruitment and explained at the Orientation seminars. My staff is available to support the recruitment and nomination process.

4.Administrative support and budget:

The Committee's operations are part of the City Planning Division. The Planning Act requires that the Committee of Adjustment appoint a Secretary-Treasurer to administer its operations. I am recommending that City Council instruct the Committee to appoint the Executive Director and Chief Planner, or delegate(s), as Secretary-Treasurer for the City.

Members honoraria and expenses are included in the City Planning Division budget. In 1999, the total of honorarium allocations was over $185,200 for the 34 incumbent Committee positions. The Mayor's Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions will be recommending a new schedule of honoraria. In my opinion, Committee of Adjustment members should receive one of the higher rates established, given the mandate and level of responsibility involved.

Conclusions:

The new organizational structure for the Committee of Adjustment is based on a critical review of the six existing operations to determine where resources and staff are best deployed to maximize results for the City. It will harmonize operations, improving the level of service while maintaining an open, accessible and equitable hearing process city-wide.

Continuous service improvement is an ongoing process. A further report outlining ongoing harmonization of the Committee's day-to-day operations will be submitted at the end of this year. As well, I am recommending that I report back to City Council at the beginning of its next term with an evaluation of the new organizational structure.

Contact Name:

Beate Bowron, Director of Community Planning - South District

Toronto City Hall

Phone: 392-0427Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: bbowron@toronto.ca

 Chair, York Committee of Adjustment

(October 5, 1999)

Comments:

Enclosed please find comments on the Report on the Organizational structure for the new Committee of Adjustment (All Wards) prepared by the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services which the Community Council has requested comments for their October 12th meeting.

Kindly add this letter to the supplementary agenda you said you were sending out today to the Councillors.

As well, I would like the opportunity to address the Community Council on this matter when they deal with it on their October 12th meeting. Please be advised that our Committee is sitting that night, but I should be able to attend the meeting, perhaps a little late.

Should you have any questions, you can reach me at 905-619-1270.

 Chair, York Committee of Adjustment

(October 5, 1999)

Purpose:

The members of the Committee of Adjustment York Services have reviewed the above report submitted to the York Community Council for review and here with respectfully submit their comments.

Comments:

The committee members have concerns about the following Recommendations in the report:

1)Geographic Districts

2)Composition of the Committee

3)Time of Committee Hearings

4)Locations of Committee Hearings

5)Member Qualifications

6)Financial Implications

7)Corrections to the Appendices

8)Committee Operations

9)Consultation Process

10)Integrity of the Committee

1)Geographic Districts:

The members feel that merging the York services committee with the Etobicoke Services committee will have a detrimental affect on the access to the Committee for future committee members and the public.

While numerically it would be nice to compose the West District of the former committees of Etobicoke and York, the practical reality is that the York community has a closer affinity with the City of Toronto. The Humber River has always had the role of physically and pscyhologilcally separating the former cities of Toronto and York from Etobicoke. No slight is intended, but the character of the neighbourhoods are similar between the former municipalities of York and Toronto than York and Etobicoke. (Quite often, the York and Toronto committees deal with applications which straddle the former municipal boundaries.) As such, the members feel that the community will not be satisfied with decisions emanating from Etobicoke. This will end up with more appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.

It would serve the York community better if the Committee of Adjustment York Services area would be merged with the City of Toronto Services area. (It is noted that other departments are proposing this areas of mergers.)

2)Composition of the Committee:

As proposed, the constitution of a particular Panel will result in there not being a sole York community member - a reduction in York community representation. AT other times, the other panel members follow the lead of the York member or that the other two panellists will out vote the York member. Coupled with members unfamiliar with the neighbourhood character of York, this results in an unfair situation for the constituents of the York community. The same composition will happen against Etobicoke applicants. On the other hand, with the character of the neighbourhoods being similar between the former municipalities of York and Toronto, and the By-laws similarly complicated, there would be a confidence in any decision proposed by a member of the Toronto community. In fact, the by-law affecting eastern York could merge very easily with the Toronto by-law.

The York community would feel better served should decision be made by York community members and Toronto community members.

As alternative, a panel of 5 should sit at any hearing composed of two members from each of the joined communities (Toronto/York, York/Etobicoke, East York/Scarborough) and a chair who would vote in ties. The suggested number of members for this District be four from Etobicoke and four from York communities. Any cost increase could be reflected in the fees.

3)Time of Hearings:

As the majority of the York community work during the day, it is imperative that hearings be held in the evenings. This would ensure that volunteers with qualifications proposed by the report would come forward to sit on the committee and that the applicant and concerned neighbours from the York community will come to participate in hearings.

The last thing the Committee wants to do is appear to make access to it difficult. As a forum for public discussion, the Committee must be accessible to all without sacrificing a day of work. The Committee does not want to lose the confidence of the Community. Otherwise, appeals will rise.

Staff should be directed to see what extra costs, if any, are incurred by evening hearings and propose an adjustment in fees to cover the extra time if appropriate.

4)Location of Committee Hearings:

It is very important for the Committee to be easily accessible. Travel for members of the York community and the York members of the Panel to Etobicoke will onerous, and this will reduce the amount of involvement by the community and potential committee members in the Panel. Public transit to Etobicoke is more difficult that Public transit to downtown Toronto.

Any committee hearing should be held in the York community.

5)Members Qualifications:

As the Committee wants to attract the best people for it, members with an understanding of development issues is good. The trick is not to make involvement in the Committee onerous with such demands as lots of travel, difficulty in access due to time of day or distance.

A further consideration is that there may be an appearance of a conflict of interest if a member who is involved in the Development/Construction industry is involved with the Committee. Since this type of person is the one the Committee would like to attract, being a member of the City-wide Committee of Adjustment may make it difficult for this person to appear before other panels. Careful Conflict of Interest guidelines must be made for potential members who may appear before Panels.

6)Financial Implications:

A thorough costing analysis must be made to balance the level of service, committee size and staffing. A proposed fee schedule could then be established that would be fair and reasonable and as cost recoverable as possible.

7)Corrections to the Appendices:

The members of the Committee wish to correct for the record that the York services Committee sits every three weeks, not once a month. The seventeen meetings year provide ample service for the volume of applications in the community, and no noticeable increase in service would be realized if joined with the Etobicoke Services committee.

8)Committee Operations:

With the resulting dilution in neighbourhood representation on the Committee, the site visit becomes extremely important to assessing any application.

Ensuring that the operation of the new Committee of Adjustment to include site visits is essential.

9)Consultation Process:

The Committee wishes to express its dismay that not one member of any committee of adjustment was involved in the preparation of the report before the Community Council. While staff does an excellent job in serving the public on a day to day basis, the committee members have a tremendous amount of experience in the hearings which also give insight into the feelings of the community.

10)Integrity of the Committee:

In closing, the members wish to express that the Integrity of the Committee of Adjustment does not decline with the proposed changes. As a forum for discussion of land development issues at the local street scale, the Committee of Adjustment must maintain the Community's confidence. In York, following the tumultuous late 80's, this is especially true. The committees of the 90's have respected the community's right to be heard. Any change that reduces the ease of accessibility will be interpreted by the Community as reduction in their right to be involved in issues that affect them.

 Co-Chair, Warren Park Ratepayers' Association

(October 8, 1999)

This is to advise you that the Warren Park Ratepayers' Association is requesting that the Committee of Adjustment office be maintained within the premises known as 2700 Eglinton Avenue West, previous City of York Council Offices.

It is our concern that moving this Committee out of our area will not only make things less convenient for those of us in within the City of York boundaries, but also further dilutes and takes away from our local autonomy.

We ask that the relocation of this vital office, be reconsidered, and that the Committee of Adjustment office continue to operate out of 2700 Eglinton Avenue West. This is a convenient location for us to get to do business.

 Director, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association

(October 8, 1999)

The Swansea Area Ratepayers Association will not be able to attend at the City of Toronto Community Council meeting given that the writer is attending at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in favour of the City's position in regard to ward boundaries and one councillor per ward.

It is our intention to have a representative make a presentation to the York Community Council given that it is holding an evening meeting and its close proximity to Swansea.

Firstly we do not support the decision to exclude citizens from the process by holding day time meetings. The former City of Toronto took great pride in supporting "participatory planning" which meant involving the citizens in the process not just the stake holder (i.e. lawyer, agents, architects, builders) who because of their profession can attend daytime meetings.

It is often neighbour which draw to the Committee's attention inconsistencies in what may otherwise appear a minor variance. In addition, it ensures honesty in the sense that the largest number of persons can be involved.

From our perspective we fail to see how access is improved by requiring the citizens of York or East York to travel outside their community to Etobicoke or Scarborough respectively. Based on our understanding this would require travelling by car not public transit given the existing connections and times to travel.

Even if you were considering a four panel concept why would you not hold hearings in the East York and York communities, unless of course you intend to sell the buildings, and this assist in declaring them surplus?

In addition while it may not be our place to comment, but as a ratepayers association representing an area which was amalgamated in 1967, the creation of four panels would appear to be a preemptive strike to end the existing of East York and York and to move to a four community Council structure, and preclude the recommendations of the Miller Committee of having more not fewer community councils.