June 25, 1999

To:Planning and Transportation Committee

From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject:New Practices for the Review of Development Applications

 Purpose:

This report proposes new practices for the review of development applications and for the delivery of City Planning services across the City. In adopting the recommendations of Report No. 9 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team (July 29, 1998), City Council has set a direction for a clear and consistent process, increased delegation of authority to staff and early identification of issues of City-wide interest. This report has been developed in consultation with other department colleagues who are involved in the review of development applications.

Financial Implications:

There are no costs associated with 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 October 4, 1999 meeting.

(2)Council endorse the following principles as the foundation for new practices in City Planning:

(i)delegation of authority to staff, as permitted by statute, to approve applications for site plan control approval, various classes of consents, draft condominium approval (except for conversion of rental housing) and authority to execute, amend and release site plan agreements on behalf of the City;

(ii)a case management system which provides for a continuity of planning staff assignment from the beginning to the completion of any project;

(iii)a one-window review and comment process which is streamlined to the essential agencies and which establishes time frames for responses;

(iv)use of preliminary evaluation reports, for applications to amend the official plan or zoning by-law, to identify issues, set up a community consultation process and to establish a target for delivery of a final recommendation report and statutory public meeting;

(v)provision for roundtable meetings between applicants and empowered staff from City departments to identify issues, technical studies needed and other relevant matters early in the review process;

(vi)use of plain language and common formats in reports to Council, notices to the public and agreements related to development approvals;

(vii)use of informal and formal dispute resolution throughout the approval process to avoid appeals and referrals to the Ontario Municipal Board.

(3)The City Solicitor be directed to prepare by-laws for presentation to and approval by City Council as follows:

(i)to delegate authority to approve applications for site plan control approval to the Chief Planner or delegate(s), subject to a provision for the Ward Councillor(s) to request a Abump-up@ to City Council for approval;

(ii)to establish areas of site plan control on a consistent basis across the City, establishing appropriate thresholds defining the intensity of development or redevelopment which would require the submission of an application for site plan approval as detailed in this report;

(iii)to delegate authority to grant draft condominium approvals except for applications involving the conversion of rental housing, and exemptions from draft approval as appropriate, to the Chief Planner or delegate(s);

(iv)to delegate approval authority for the creation of new lots by consent to the Committee of Adjustment as permitted under Section 54 of the Planning Act;

(v)to delegate approval authority for all consents, other than the creation of new lots, to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment or delegate(s) in accordance with Section 54(2) of the Planning Act;

(vi)to delegate authority to execute, amend and release agreements as required, to the Chief Planner or delegate(s).

(4)The City Solicitor be authorized and directed to prepare and present for Council approval, standard form agreements as required and authorized by the Planning Act and any other statutes to replace standard form agreements currently in use.

(5)Council request the Province of Ontario to amend the Planning Act to delete the requirements for a public meeting in conjunction with plans of subdivision.

(6)Staff be authorized to accept certificates of completion from Provincially registered professionals as proof of compliance with City requirements and Provincial statutes with regard to site plan approval and condominium registration.

(7) Staff be directed to bring forward any amendments to the Official Plans of the former municipalities required to implement the findings of this report;

(8) Staff be directed to bring forward a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee recommending a new structure for the Committee(s) of Adjustment;

(9)Staff be directed to bring forward a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee recommending new practices for harmonizing the Committee of Adjustment function; and

(10)Staff in the Urban Planning and Development Services Department, Corporate Services Department, Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department, and Works and Emergency Services Department, be authorized to undertake necessary actions to give effect to these recommendations.

Background:

A commitment to identify best practices was outlined in the Toronto Area Urban Development/Planning Commissioners= August 1997 report to the Transition Team. In its December 1997 ANew City, New Opportunities@ report, the Transition Team promoted the use of best practices during amalgamation, stressing that the new City should build on what works best now.

On July 29, 1998 Council considered Report No. 9 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team as submitted by the Chair, Councillor David Miller. That report calls for the development of a protocol for the processing of planning matters based on the following principles:

(i)the guidelines should provide clarity of interpretation, yet allow for flexibility in application;

(ii)the matter shall be considered to be of local interest and shall be processed through the Community Councils unless identified by Council as having a city-wide interest;

(iii)decisions regarding how planning matters are routed through committees of Council should be made as early as possible;

(iv)Community Councils should continue to have input in planning matters identified to be of City-wide interest; and

(v)only one Committee of Council should make recommendations to Council on any given planning matter.

At that same July 29, 1998 meeting Council adopted guidelines for determining City-wide interests in planning matters and a protocol for routing City-wide matters though the decision-making structure. The guidelines and protocol appear to be functioning satisfactorily and there is no need to amend them at this time.

Introduction:

The City Planning Division of Urban Planning and Development Services (UPDS) processed over 4,500 applications in 1998, ranging from complex official plan and zoning by-law amendments involving thousands of new residential units, to minor variance applications involving minute adjustments to zoning requirements. The projects cover the continuum from complex mixed-use developments to small infill projects.

Practices of the seven former Planning Departments in dealing with these applications stem from the cultures of the former cities as formalized in various by-laws and Council directions in the form of resolutions. Given the common enabling legislation, the Planning Act, the difference in practices is remarkable, but understandable given the disparate priorities of the former Councils and the different levels of resources available to carry out Council=s directions.

Obviously the service levels also varied between the former municipalities. Upon review, it appears that not all the practices warranted the time, effort and resources that were dedicated to them. While in other areas it is obvious that the practices would have benefited from additional resources. Amalgamation has provided the opportunity to amalgamate resources and the impetus for fresh approaches focussed on value-added services and functions.

A review of the current planning practices was undertaken. During the review, input was received from many of our partners in the planning process: applicants, Councillors, residents and businesses and colleagues from other departments and jurisdictions.

The expectations of our client groups are very clear.

Applicants urge the City to increase the efficiency of its business practices by streamlining existing processes with a co-ordinated case management approach using one-window review and comment, thereby allowing for better risk management and early responses to issues.

The public deserves an open process and early involvement as a partner in decision-making, community-based meetings in addition to Community Council debates and the opportunity for greater use of mediation to resolve issues. As described in the Miller Committee Report, the purpose is to Aemphasize the importance of citizen involvement as a fundamental organizing principle of the City=s political governance structure.@

Councillors demand high quality planning services which are consistent City-wide but adaptable to meet local needs, along with excellent customer service and clear definition of who is responsible. Administrative processes must ensure an effective role for the Ward Councillors and ensure that internal communication links to the Councillors= offices work smoothly and consistently.

There are critical decisions that must be made by Council in order to reconcile the expectations of client groups given current resources, statutory requirements and Council=s commitment to the enhancement of the quality of life in our City. By adopting streamlined processes, harmonizing procedures and delegating authority to staff, where appropriate, Council will be able to focus on key governance issues for Toronto while providing staff with the tools to undertake necessary administrative and technical approvals.

Staff=s proposals for new practices and procedures are set out in the following pages. These proposals are the framework within which detailed procedures will be developed for the use of line staff.

1.Basic Business Rules

Common ways of conducting business are essential in order to expedite information flow to the Ward Councillors, to ensure that residents are an integral part of a principled development review process and to provide consistently uniform comments on similar issues. It also allows for easier movement of staff if workloads fluctuate. The basic business rules to be followed by all district offices are outlined in the following paragraphs.

(a)Case management for all planning applications

The approach towards the management and co-ordination of planning applications varied between the former municipalities. In some municipalities a case management approach was used to deal with planning applications, in other municipalities separate sections of the department dealt with different types of applications on the same site. For instance, one planner would be assigned to the rezoning file on a site, while another planner would be responsible for the site plan review on the same site.

In case management, one planner is assigned responsibility for facilitating the progress of planning approvals for a development project from start to finish, and ensuring a smooth transition to the building permit stream. It is recommended that this approach be applied to all types of planning applications. It provides opportunities to integrate the review process with other service areas, such as Transportation Services, Water and Waste Water Services, Building, and others. Planners have the particular skill sets necessary to act as team leaders for implementing case management.

(b)Pre-application meeting between staff and applicant

Planning staff will encourage and co-ordinate a pre-application meeting to provide background information and advice. The applicant will benefit from increased certainty on expectations and issues. The objective is to reduce processing time and costs. Appendix 1 generally illustrates the revised process for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as further discussed in the following sub-sections.

(c)One-window circulation of applications

AOne-window@ circulation is a review and approval process that is streamlined by clearly identifying the essential players and has set turn-around targets. Related applications involving official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments and site plan approvals are processed together whenever possible.

Roundtable sessions, where the applicant meets with empowered representatives of the appropriate departments, will be scheduled on a regular basis to promote the flow of information and problem solving. These meetings will allow for the early identification of issues, and promote early and open discussion of possible solutions to problems. From the City=s perspective they are efficient as it would allow staff whose home bases are often in different locations to meet at one location in the district and deal with several applications at the same time rather than having to set up multiple meetings.

The one-window approach presents an excellent opportunity to further streamline review of development applications in consultation with colleagues in other related service areas. The details of implementation are now being worked out with these corporate colleagues.

(d)Preliminary evaluation reports for official plan and zoning amendment applications

The Community Councils have the central role in assessing major redevelopment proposals at the community level and in identifying City-wide issues. Therefore it is important that planning staff advise the Community Councils on the issues at the earliest possible date. Within 6 weeks of receipt of each complete official plan and zoning by-law amendment application, a preliminary evaluation report will be put before the Community Council.

The preliminary evaluation report will identify any City-wide issues and include a strategy for processing the application, including community consultation. Should planning staff recommend refusal of the application, the Community Council may schedule deputations on the item. Both the Community Councillors and the proponent will benefit from this early evaluation, which will afford an opportunity for effective decision making and risk management.

(e)Final recommendation report

The final report brings together all City interests, and sets the stage for the statutory public meeting. A new protocol and template for these reports has been prepared and is now in use. Further ongoing refinements are being made to standardize the form of recommendations and to the quality of graphics material. An emphasis on plain language is also underway. This will ensure that a complete analysis of all the issues is before the Community Council, including the results of community consultation, all draft by-laws, and the status of any related delegated approvals for the project. When the report is signed, notice of the statutory meeting will be given and copies of the final report and draft by-laws will be available to the Community Council and to the public. The by-laws will usually be introduced at the next meeting of City Council.

(f)Enhance dispute resolution throughout the planning process

Dispute resolution draws together a range of techniques, which reconcile competing interests to achieve the best possible solution. Planners have considerable experience in the innovative use of mediation and settlement tools. Dispute resolution can help to avoid costly and time consuming Ontario Municipal Board hearings. These approaches will be encouraged and applied throughout the planning process to resolve disputes.

2.Community Consultation and Effective Communications in Plain Language

Community consultation is a necessary and important part of the official plan and zoning by-law amendment processes. Although, the consultation practices varied in each of the former area municipalities, each of the processes was designed to be fair, open and accessible. The goal is to create new processes which achieve those ends.

Consultation allows the community to become familiar with the proposal and gives them an opportunity to weigh the impacts and benefits of the proposal. It allows the community an opportunity to shape the project on a level footing with the applicant prior to Council=s decision.

Informal community consultation, prior to the statutory public meeting, is a normal part of the planning review process. It is important to identify community expectations and welcome community involvement in the decision making process prior to the formulation of planning recommendations. It is often an opportunity for initiating an informal dispute resolution process.

The process for community consultation will be set out in the preliminary evaluation report in consultation with the Ward Councillors. These community meetings will provide a forum for the exchange of information and opinions between the applicant and neighbouring property owners or residents. Meetings normally will be chaired by planning staff and the Ward Councillors will be invited to attend. These meetings benefit all parties through early identification of issues and possible solutions.

The statutory public meeting is a fair and open forum to enable an informed recommendation to be made by Community Council. These meetings are normally held by the Community Council and led by the Community Council chair. Planning staff and staff from other departments who have been involved in the case management of the application will be available to assist the Community Council at the public meeting.

In consultation with colleagues in other service areas, a standard format has been prepared for notices of the statutory meetings. The size of the notification areas will be standardized to be consistent with the requirements of the Planning Act. The planner as part of the continuum of managing the file will prepare these notices.

Plain language communication is not a new idea. It has been emphasized for many years, with constant efforts made for improvement. A strategic review is now underway on how staff communicates on specific planning matters. Staff have prepared new templates to ensure that public meeting notices and all explanatory remarks are in Aplain language@ (See Appendix 4). This will help ensure that the public perceives the statutory meetings held by Community Councils as effective, not just procedural, forums for review of all the issues.

The area of notice for community and public meetings will be as set out in the Regulations under the Planning Act for public meetings. Notices will be drafted as to content by planning staff. Notices for community and public meetings will be sent out by the Clerks Division of the Corporate Services Department. Any direction to exceed the requirements of the Act with respect to the area to be notified will incur increased costs, which will have to be recovered either from the Councillor=s budget or from the applicant.

30Delegation of Approval Authority

A number of functions have been delegated to the City by the Province and likewise functions have been delegated by Council to staff. Delegation to staff was a common practice in the former area municipalities, although the specifics of the delegations varied. This section of the report reviews the various delegated processes and recommends harmonized delegation practices. Delegation to staff is not being recommended for policy matters as they should remain with Council. Delegation to staff is being recommended to deal with the day-to-day administrative and technical matters related to certain types of applications. Delegation will allow these matters to be dealt with in a timely fashion and free Council=s time for dealing with policy and governance matters.

(a)Approval authority for official plan amendments

In 1996, Bill 20, the Land Use Planning and Protection Act, provided for exemption of official plan and official plan amendments, province-wide, from the often lengthy process of Ministerial approval. In its 1997 Implementation Strategy report, the province indicated that exemption of official plan amendments for the new City of Toronto would proceed once the new City is in place. This has now occurred.

Any official plan amendment adopted after June 30, 1998 is exempt from ministerial approval. At the present time the staff are working with the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to ensure all of the requirements of the Ontario Regulations exempting the city from approval requirements for official plan are implemented smoothly at preconsultation and approval stages.

(b)Approval authority for plan of subdivision applications

The approval authority for subdivisions is currently delegated by the Province to the City. The City of Toronto has responsibility for all aspects of approval for new plans of subdivision. The Planning Act requires that a public meeting be held. Staff are ensuring that the procedural details are harmonized for all district offices.

As with other planning applications, the set of basic business rules advocated in this report will be followed in processing plans of subdivision. A preliminary meeting will be held with the applicant prior to submission of plans. If the subdivision application is submitted concurrently with official plan and zoning by-law applications, a preliminary report will be sent to Community Council outlining the proposal, any issues and the processing strategy. If the subdivision application is submitted after all official plan and zoning by-law matters have been resolved, the Ward Councillors will be notified of the application by letter and technical review will proceed without a preliminary report.

Following completion of technical review, one final report, dealing with all planning matters will be submitted to Community Council outlining the recommended conditions of approval for the subdivision. With this information, the Community Council will give notice, hold a public meeting and make its recommendation to City Council. Following a decision by City Council, staff will prepare and execute any resulting agreements.

As noted above, the Planning Act requires a Community Council give notice and hold the statutory public meeting. The issues raised in the subdivision of land, however, are often largely technical in nature. The permission to develop and the specific requirements for development are established through the zoning process. Therefore, the requirement for a mandatory public meeting, and the right of appeal, appear unnecessary.

An amendment to the Planning Act, deleting the requirement for a public notice and statutory public meeting for plans of subdivision should be considered in order to avoid unnecessary delay. This would be consistent with the process for plans of condominium.

(c)Delegation of site plan approval authority to the Chief Planner and proposed exemptions

Site plan approval can only be given to proposals which are in total conformity with applicable zoning. Typically, the approval process is a routine matter involving careful and exhaustive technical review of site development issues.

The site plan approval authority is currently delegated to staff. Delegation of approval authority to staff has proven to be a significant streamlining and cost efficiency measure, as these applications primarily require technical and urban design review.

There is no statutory requirement for a public meeting; however, it will remain standard procedure for Ward Councillors to receive a letter advising of each site plan application within several days of its submission. This letter will identify the staff co-ordinating the review, who will then be available to the Ward Councillor to answer questions and provide status updates. Staff will bring forward a by-law to implement this procedure. Appendix 2 generally illustrates the revised process for site plan approval.

In certain exceptional cases, the local Councillor(s) may wish to withdraw the delegated authority and direct staff to report to the Community Council. Current delegation by-laws provide for such a Abump-up@, however, the by-laws are not consistent.

Staff recommend that the delegation by-law should provide for a Abump-up@ at the request of the Ward Councillor(s). In order to expedite a decision, the direction should be in writing and should be requested within fourteen days of the circulation date.

Once a Abump-up@ is initiated, staff will prepare a recommendation report for the consideration of the Community Council. The authority to approve or refuse such applications would remain with City Council.

Currently, the exemption thresholds for the site plan approval process vary from municipality to municipality. For instance, in some former municipalities most industrial development was exempt from site plan approval while in other municipalities all industrial development was subject to site plan approval. In many of the former municipalities most single family homes are exempt from site plan approval. In other municipalities all single-family homes on a lot created by consent to sever are subject to site plan approval. Variations like these are obvious indications of different levels of resources being invested by the City and the developer in different areas of the City.

Staff reviewed 658 site plan control files approved in 1997, to determine the effect of the proposed thresholds on the number of files which would have been exempted. The proposed thresholds would have exempted approximately one third of that total.

The majority of exempted developments were additions to existing commercial, mixed use and industrial projects; single detached and semi-detached homes; temporary structures; and other miscellaneous construction such as telecommunications equipment. The majority of new developments would remain subject to site plan control as would all properties in or adjacent to ravines or the shore of Lake Ontario.

Staff have reviewed the exemption levels asking when is the value added significant enough to warrant the time and resources involved in requiring a development to go through the site plan approvals process. As a result of this review, staff are recommending making the entire City an area requiring site plan approval subject to the exemptions as set in the table attached to this report as Appendix 3. Current levels of exemptions are listed on the table for comparison purposes.

(d)Delegation of condominium approval authority to the Chief Planner

The process for condominium approval is normally a straightforward technical review, however, in the past there were a number of different practices some of which went beyond the requirements set out in the Act. These additional requirements have on occasion resulted in significant delays and additional costs for the developer and the prospective purchasers of units, while producing limited benefits.

Most condominium applications are for buildings already under construction and where site plan approval has been granted. No public meeting or statutory public meeting is required under current legislation.

The new practices being proposed would:

(a)permit draft approval concurrently with site plan approval to avoid duplication of conditions;

(b)develop standard conditions that deal with registration issues only;

(c)rely on the Regulations to the Condominium Act to determine whether a building is complete for registration purposes; and

(d)separate occupancy clearances from registration.

It is appropriate that approval authority be delegated to the Chief Planner or delegate(s). Such a delegation should include the authority to grant an exemption from the draft approval in instances where the condominium approval would apply to a project secured by a previous site plan control approval. Such exemptions would not apply to buildings being converted from industrial/commercial uses to residential occupancy.

Delegated authority would not apply to conversions of rental housing in accordance with City Council policy.

Some of the existing Official Plans contain policies and requirements, which are no longer necessary given the changes to the Condominium Act. For instance, the Etobicoke Official Plan contains policies that provide reference to an appendix which sets out detailed engineering standards for site servicing, surface works including paving, concrete lighting, and other development aspects for condominium developments. These policies date from the early 1970=s and were established in response to what was a poorly regulated process. The Etobicoke work was considered visionary at the time and formed the basis for future legislative and regulatory amendments.

The current regulatory environment, however, is a highly sophisticated one, which has surpassed the Etobicoke Official Plan policies. Policies and requirements such as those found in the Etobicoke Official Plan should therefore be repealed.

(e)Delegation of approval authority for consent applications to the Committee of Adjustment and the Chief Planner

The consent process is used to create lots for infill redevelopments (through severance), to establish rights-of-way or to sort out revised land titles. Legislation provides for Council to delegate this function, or any part of consent authority, to a committee of Council, an appointed committee or an appointed official. In the former municipalities, consent approval authority was delegated to the Committee of Adjustment, except in the former City of Scarborough.

This report recommends that consent approval for the creation of new building lots, be delegated to the Committee of Adjustment. Delegation to the Committee of Adjustment provides acceptable risk management for applicants, Ward Councillors and residents in ensuring that the community and planning issues involved with any controversial consent application are considered in a public forum. The development projects involved in a consent application will usually also require a minor variance application and, in such cases, the Committee of Adjustment will hear the two applications at the same time.

Consent authority for other types of application, including easements, re-establishment of lot lines in the case of merged title and others, should be delegated to staff since there is no matter of public interest which would suggest the need for community consultation.

(f)Delegation of approval authority to staff to enter into, execute, amend and release registered site plan agreements and undertakings

The public interest will dictate the need for a site plan agreement and the objective is to eliminate the use of agreements whenever possible. The City will enter into registered site plan agreements when it is considered to be in the public interest to secure conditions which are not delivered at the time of construction and built into the actual development, or which require future assurances on maintenance or access, such as phased landscaping plans, subsequent public works or dedications, or multiple-party benefits.

When a development project is ready to proceed, considerable time savings can be achieved by delegating the authority to enter into, execute, amend and release, site plan agreements when necessary. Staff will forward a by-law to Council giving staff this authority.

(g)Certificates of Completion

In order to assess the state of completion of various features of approved site plans, staff are required to inspect the development site. These have been carried out by city planners, building inspectors, forestry staff or others. The practice has been inconsistent and time consuming. Inspections are also carried out by private sector professionals for other parties with an interest in the development of the site, in particular banks and other lending institutions. These lenders require that the design professionals responsible for the project issue certificates of completion in order to release further construction funds. A similar practice should be adopted by the City with regard to site plan inspections and release for condominium registration. Such a process would reduce duplication, conserve City resources while maintaining the assurance of professional inspection. Certificates of completion should only be accepted from members of the appropriate provincially accredited professional organizations. This would not substitute for other mandatory inspections carried out by building inspectors, fire prevention officers or other City services.

(h)Implementing by-laws

A series of implementing by-laws will be submitted to drive the major changes, starting with the details of delegations for site plan, subdivision and condominium applications to staff and for consent applications involving the creation of new lots to the Committee of Adjustment and for all other consents to the Chief Planner or designate(s).

4.Harmonization of Operations Among Existing Planning Offices

The following changes are directed at harmonizing operations among the existing planning offices, providing efficient, responsive administrative practices.

(a)Committee of Adjustment structure

Each Community Council has responsibility, within the part of the urban area it represents, to nominate citizens as members of the community panels of the Committee of Adjustment. As an interim practice, business has continued as usual with hearings held by sitting members of the Committees for the former municipalities. City Council extended the terms of the current Committee of Adjustment members until the end of 1999. At that time structures need to be approved which will permit the Committees of Adjustment to be reconstituted as a new Committee of Adjustment with a number of panels. Staff will soon bring forward a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee recommending a new Committee of Adjustment structure.

(b)Reduced number of staff reports on minor variance applications

As the transition process proceeds, the number of staff reports prepared by the district offices on minor variance applications will be reduced. Instead of reporting on every application as has been the practice in some areas, the objective will be to produce a staff report only for those minor variance applications, which affect a municipal interest, involve unique conditions or raise significant technical concerns or corporate policy issues that require clarification. Staff will work together to ensure consistent procedures are followed in reporting to the various Committee panels.

A number of other decisions need to be made regarding the role of staff supporting the Committee of Adjustment. These will be addressed in a forthcoming report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the harmonization of operations of the Committee of Adjustment.

(c)Common planning application forms

Convenience, simplification and predictability all influence the customer=s level of satisfaction. Since early January 1999, applicants have been able to file development applications at any of the seven planning offices. A streamlined forms package for all planning applications is now in use. The new application forms have been posted on the City=s web site for downloading by clients. The package of forms is being re-evaluated to introduce a number of ongoing improvements.

(d)Standardized conditions of approval, administrative practices and use of agreements

Consultative work is also ongoing with staff in other service areas to standardize conditions of approval for the various types of planning applications, and to get protocols for the common use of agreements in connection with the differing types of planning applications. Work is also well underway on standardization and simplification of procedures for review of the various types of planning applications.

(e)Adopt a set of simplified standard form agreements

The City Solicitor has been working with Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services staff to develop standard form, simplified agreements and undertakings to replace those in current useage. This will be reported on to Council separately.

5.Continuous Improvement through New Practices

This review has taken a critical look are where resources and staff are best deployed in the planning process to maximize the results for the City. Although perhaps not offering the same level of service as was provided in each of the former municipalities, it recommends a streamlined service which minimizes red tape, while focusing available staff resources on value added services. It recommends:

(a)case management for all applications;

(b)one-window circulation of applications;

(c)standardized protocol for reporting on applications;

(d)enhanced dispute resolution;

(e)common community consultation and notice practices;

(f)harmonized delegation practices;

(g)uniform site plan exemption thresholds;

(h)acceptance of certificates of completion from Provincially registered professionals; and

(i)harmonized operations in the existing planning offices.

The proposals contained in this report offer a level of certainty and transparency to all the participants in the planning process, while eliminating confusing differences in practice and duplication.

The logical place to start a transition process is with the basic needs of the client groups. The recommendations outlined above are beginning to set the stage to explore new directions, new approaches to planning and new ways of thinking about the task of City-building. Further new practices will be sought from other jurisdictions across the province and the country. The focus will be on innovative work designed to revitalize communities with new ways of guiding development such as development permit systems and other new techniques.

The process of new practice development is a continuous loop of feedback, adjustment and implementation. This is essential if stagnation and inefficiencies are to be avoided. Staff will regularly review and update practices to remain leaders in this field.

Conclusions:

The recommended new practices are initial steps in an ongoing process of continuous service improvement. The objectives are plain. Delegation of mostly technical review processes will speed the development approval. Adoption of basic business rules will assist both applicants and the public in opening and maintaining positive lines of communication. Results-oriented consultation, greater use of dispute resolution and changes in the reporting process will assist in focussing issues and options for all concerned: applicants, residents, and Councillors. Streamlined administrative practices will allow Council to focus on the bigger picture by delegating minor issues to officials, and will assist applicants with risk management by adding consistency, predictability and increased efficiency.

 Contact Name:

Ted Tyndorf

Director of Community Planning, East District

Scarborough Civic Centre

Phone: 396-7006, Fax: 396-4265

E-mail: ttyndor@city.scarborough.on.ca

Reviewed by:

Paul J. BedfordVirginia M. West

Executive Director and Chief PlannerCommissioner of Urban Planning

City Planning Divisionand Development Services

EXISTING EXEMPTIONS

 

DEVELOPMENT TYPE	PROPOSED EXEMPTION	EAST YORK	ETOBICOKE	CITY OF TORONTO	NORTH YORK	SCARBOROUGH	YORK
New Development: Institutional* Commercial Office Mixed Use	All subject to SPA** unless located on a designated AMain Street@ and have a lot frontage no more than 12.5m***	All subject to SPA except small detached commercial buildings	All subject to SPA**	Same as proposed exemption	All subject to SPA	All subject to SPA	All subject to SPA
Additions:	Exempt if maintain existing footprint; or -addition is the lesser of 600 m2 or 20% of existing Gross Floor Area -Gas Station additions not exempt	All subject to SPA except small additions to detached commercial buildings	All subject to SPA	Up to 600 m2	Additions which are less than 5%* of existing gfa are exempt (*larger if nothing can be achieved)	All subject to SPA	All subject to SPA except for minor enclosures

 *Institutional B includes hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the aged, schools, community centres, places of worship, cemetary buildings, park buildings

**SPA B site plan approval

***Exemption only applies in former City of Toronto at present. As AMain Street@ designations are extended to other communities, exemption will apply.

EXISTING EXEMPTIONS

 

DEVELOPMENT TYPE	PROPOSED EXEMPTION	EAST YORK	ETOBICOKE	CITY OF TORONTO	NORTH YORK	SCARBOROUGH	YORK
New Development: Industrial	All Industrial exempt unless: -adjacent to or opposite a residential use; -adjacent to a school, park, arterial road or highway; -in the Port District; -adjacent to a ravine; or -recycling	Similar to proposed exemption but this only applies to development under 900 m2	Same as proposed exemption. However, institutional commercial, & office uses in interior areas are also excluded	Under 300 m2	All industrial buildings are subject to SPA	Same as proposed exemption but also recreational and educational uses in interiors are excluded. Recycling uses in interiors of industrial districts do not require SPA	Same as proposed exemption, However, office uses in interior areas are also excluded.
Additions:	Where already subject to SPA, all additions which are the lesser of 600 m2 or 20% of the existing GFA are exempt (Additions involving recycling uses not exempt)	Exemption for additions based on 900 m2 gfa standard above	Additions not currently exempt	Exempt additions up to 1000 m2 or 20% of the existing gfa whichever is the greater within a 12 month period.	Additions which are less than 5%* of existing gfa are exempt (*larger if nothing can be achieved)	Additions not currently exempt.	Additions not currently exempt.

 

EXISTING EXEMPTIONS

 

DEVELOPMENT TYPE	PROPOSED EXEMPTION	EAST YORK	ETOBICOKE	CITY OF TORONTO	NORTH YORK	SCARBOROUGH	YORK
New Development: Residential B -singles -semi=s -duplexes -fourplexes -semi-detached triplexes & fourplexes	All exempt unless located adjacent to a substandard lane or in or within 10 m of a ravine	Same, except lots within 10 metres of crest of a ravine are subject to SPA	Same, except that lots abutting valley/ watercourse or Lake Ontario are subject to SPA	Same as proposed exemption, except 10 m ravine impact line	Same except that single-family & semi-detached lots created by consent and lots which are in the V.I.Z. are also subject to SPA	Only one & two dwelling units per parcel are exempt from SPA. Dwellings located on or within 20 m of an AEIZ@ are subject to SPA.	Same except that lots abutting/within ravine are subject to SPA
*Residential B .Townhouses .Row House	Exempt if adjacent to a public street, if no front yard garages, if less than 8 units, have no corner lots, & are in or within 10 m of a ravine	All townhouse developments exceeding 4 units subject to SPA	All Townhouses are subject to SPA	Same as proposed exemption, except 10 m ravine impact line	All Townhouses are subject to SPA	All street townhouses exempt	All Townhouses are subject to SPA
Apartments	Subject to SPA	Same as above (below 4 units exempt)	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA
Apartment Additions	The lesser of 600 m2 or 20% of existing gfa are exempt	Additions resulting in less than 4 units total exempt	No exemptions for additions	Same but alternations up to 1000 m2 are exempt	Additions less than 5% increase in gfa exempt *larger if nothing can be achieved.	No exemptions for additions	No exemptions for additions

EXISTING EXEMPTIONS

 

DEVELOPMENT TYPE	PROPOSED EXEMPTION	EAST YORK	ETOBICOKE	CITY OF TORONTO	NORTH YORK	SCARBOROUGH	YORK
Conversions -From any use to Residential, Offices, Mixed Use or Institutional	Conversions under 1000 m2 exempt	No exemption for small conversions regardless of size	No exemption for small conversions regardless of size.	Same	No exemption for small conversions regardless of size	No exemption for small conversions regardless of size	No exemption for small conversions regardless of size
-From any use to Commercial	Conversions under 1000 m2 exempt unless conversion involves a restaurant, recreational or entertainment use	Not exempt unless converting to a small detached commercial building	No exemption for small conversions	Conversions up to 1000 m2 exempt.	No exemption for small conversions	No exemption for small conversions	No exemption for small conversions
From any use to Place of Worship	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Conversions up to 1000 m2 exempt.	Subject to SPA (discretionary with respect to external changes and useability)	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA

   

EXISTING EXEMPTIONS

 

DEVELOPMENT TYPE	PROPOSED EXEMPTION	EAST YORK	ETOBICOKE	CITY OF TORONTO	NORTH YORK	SCARBOROUGH	YORK
New Commercial B Parking Lots	Subject to SPA	Exempt unless below grade or multi-level	Same	Same	Same	Same	Same
-Additions to commercial parking lots	Additions not exceeding the greater of 20 spaces or 20% of existing parking supply are exempt.	Exempt unless below grade of multi-level	No exemptions for additions	No exemptions for additions	Additions which are less than 10%* of the total supply are exempt (*larger if nothing can be achieved)	No exemptions for additions	No exemptions for additions
Miscellaneous: -School Portables	Exempt from SPA	Same	Subject to SPA	Same	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA
Model Homes/Sales Pavilions	Exempt from SPA	Same	Same	Same	Same	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA

    

EXISTING EXEMPTIONS

 

DEVELOPMENT TYPE	PROPOSED EXEMPTION	EAST YORK	ETOBICOKE	CITY OF TORONTO	NORTH YORK	SCARBOROUGH	YORK
Seasonal Inflatable Buildings	Exempt	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Same (for a maximum of 16 weeks)	Same as proposed exemption	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA
Temporary Tents	Exempt	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Same (for a maximum of 12 weeks)	Same as proposed exemption	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA
Telecommunications Equipment	Exempt	Same	Subject to SPA if increasing gfa	Same, if not more than 9.1 m height and not closer than 6.1 m to lot line	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA if increasing gfa	Subject to SPA if increasing gfa
Replacement, Reconstruction and Compliance Development	Exempt	Subject to SPA if increasing gfa	Subject to SPA if increasing gfa	Same	Subject to SPA if increasing gfa	Subject to SPA if increasing gfa	Subject to SPA if increasing gfa
Works projects within public right-of-ways	Exempt	Same	Subject to SPA	Same (unless within a Ravine)	Same as proposed exemption	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA
Car Sales/Rental Trailers	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Same	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA	Subject to SPA

 The sign to be posted must read as follows in 5 cm (2 inch) type:

 Notice of Public Meeting

to consider a proposed

ZONING BY-LAW

(and OFFICIAL PLAN)

AMENDMENT to:

[Description of Application] at

[Address]

will be held on

[Meeting Date] at [Time of Meeting] pm

in the Council Chambers,

Scarborough Civic Centre,

150 Borough Drive.

Background information is available between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday at the Community Planning Office, East District, (3rd Floor) Scarborough Civic Centre, 150 Borough Drive, Scarborough. For a copy of the written notice and for further information, call 396-[Planner=s Extension].

contact: [Planner=s Name]

REFER TO FILE NO. [File No.