HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-059-10Clarin n
Leadiag the Way ~ R E .PORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: May 3, 2010
Resolution #: G~ a~3-/o By-law #: /`~~
Report #: PSD-059-10 File #'s: PLN 11.19
Subject: BILD -MUNICIPAL BEST PRACTICES, DECEMBER 2009
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
THAT report PSD-059-10 be received; and
2. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-059-10 and any delegation be
advised of Council's decision.
Submitted by: ! Reviewed by:~ ~ ~= 7~~`--~~
a e La mai FCSLA, MCIP Franklin Wu,
A ting Directo of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer
CP/df
27 April 2010
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-059-10 PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 In December 2009 BILD (Building Industry and Land Development Association)
released a paper entitled "Creating a More Efficient Development Approval
Process -Municipal Best Practices". A covering letter from Leith Moore, BILD
Chair and a copy of the Municipal Best Practices paper was forwarded to Council
for information purposes. At the January 25, 2010 Council meeting, the item was
referred to staff for a report:
A copy of the letter and Best Practices paper are contained in Attachment 1. The
Municipal Best Practices guidelines make recommendations that BILD believes
support the development process.while identifying methods to reduce 'red tape'
from the development approvals process.
The paper is divided into four (4) categories:
1. Preconsultation
2. Site Plan Applications
3. Subdivision Applications
4. Letters of Credit
1.2 Staff have prepared this report in response to BILD's paper. The paper has been
reviewed in relation to current practices within Clarington's development approvals
process and those that are currently under review. Attachment 2 contains a table
summarizing recommendations made in the BILD paper with Staffs corresponding
comments.
2.0 SUMMARY OF THE BEST PRACTICES PAPER
2.1 The Municipal Best Practices was developed by surveying the BILD membership
across the GTA. Best Practices provided suggestions on how the municipal
development process could be improved while delivering the desired municipal
outcome and savings for the municipal taxpayer from BILD's perspective. For the
building industry, improving efficiencies in the building and land development
approvals would create greater time certainty for the end user, either home owners
or tenants for industrial/office space.
3.0 STAFF COMMENTS
3.1 Staff from Planning Services, Engineering Services and Finance reviewed the 34
recommendations in order to determine which recommendations already formed
part of the Municipality's process and where improvements could be made.
3.2 The suggestions provided in the paper are not specific to any one municipality, but
rather have been prepared to determine where efficiencies for municipalities and
development industry may be achieved given current practices. There. was no
dialogue with Clarington staff on current practices.
REPORT NO.: PSD-059-10 PAGE 3
3.3 In reviewing such a document it is important to recognize that although the
development industry often works with local municipalities to achieve objectives
which are important to the community, the municipality is a regulatory approval
authority with different goals than a developer. Municipalities must protect the
public interest and municipal liability. At times, our mandate conflicts with the
immediate goals of the development industry. The key is to balance controlled
development with minimal risk to the taxpayers.
3.4 Over the last number of years there has been increasingly more provincial policy
direction that has required amendments and modifications to local Official Plans
and Zoning By-laws as well as how the development review process is
implemented at the municipal level. Staff recognizes that implementation of some
provincial policy initiatives, such as preconsultation, have added layers to the
development review process. However, the goal has been to add clarity to the
process for all parties involved including: the applicant or landowner, consultants;
residents; review agencies; municipal staff and politicians. In this light, the
development review process in Clarington is frequently reviewed to ensure it is
effective as possible. Standardized information requirements for supporting
documentation, applications forms, manuals and guidelines provides consistency
in the process and assists both the applicant and staff what information is required
to support the application and meet the complete applications requirements.
Currently, staff are updating procedures manuals for the different development
applications. As the updates are completed they will be posted to the municipal
web-site.
Delays and inefficiencies in the development approval process do not all originate
with the municipality.. High quality submissions that are thoroughly reviewed for
conformance by consultants can speed up the process greatly. Additional
information may be required after agencies review the proposal and supporting
documentation.
3.5 Although staff do not agree with all recommendations, the majority of the 34
recommendations are already in place in Clarington. The Municipality agrees with
improving the development review process. However, as noted above the
Municipality must ensure the public interest is protected in all aspects of the
development approval process. As a result some of the suggested changes are
not recommended by staff.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION
4.1 It is recommended that staff continue to review the development approval
process for opportunities for improvement, and that a copy of the staff report and
Council decision be forwarded to BILD.
Staff Contact: Carlo Pellarin
REPORT NO.: PSD-059-10
Attachments:
Attachment 1- Letter from BILD and Municipal Best Practices
Attachment 2- Comments Chart on BILD's Municipal Best Practices
Interested parties to be notified of Council's decisions:
PAGE 4
Leith More, BILD
Attachment1
To Report PSD-059-10
I r + L ~ t~
~ cr s~ s n
David Crome
Director of Planning Services
The Municipality Of Clarin~on
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Dear David Crome,
Simply put, the development approvals process has become increasingly complicated, inefficient and
expensive for both the building and development industry to navigate and more importantly, for
municipal governments to manage.
In an effort to improve the ef£ciency of the municipal development approvals process BILD is pleased.
to announce the releaseof "Creating'a More Efficient Development Approval Process: Municipal Best
Practices, December 2009."
The Municipal Best Practices was developed by surveying the BILD membership working across
the GTA to identify the most efficient policies and programs that deliver municipal outcomes while
supporting the development process.
Why is the Municipal Best Practices valuable to municipalities? Recognizing the escalating municipal
cost to manage the development approvals process, this document provides municipalities the
opportunity to identify eflciencies that will improve the process, deliver the municipal outcome while
generating savings to the municipal taxpayer.
Why is the Municipal Best Practices valuable to our industry? Improving efficiencies in the building and
land development approvals process should create greater time certainty for the end-users; consumers
waiting for homes and tenants waiting for office/industrial space.
BILD will be actively promoting the Municipal Best Practires and looking for an opportunity to engage
you on the opportunities in your municipality to apply the best practices to your municipal approvals
process. Ifyou have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Joe Vaccaro, Vice
President, Policy and Government Relations, BILD at 416.391.3454.
Sincerely,
Leith Moore jf
BILD Chair
t:~ <
>; ~ ~_:
Creating a More Efficient Development Approval Process
.Municipal Best Practices
December 2009
h1
~~~,r~~ss~~~~,~
6vU'mplrcELmY mau~J
Introduction
Both public and private interestgroups would likely agree that the development aypvoval
process is no easy task. In addition to vaious pieces of yrovincial legislation artd i~egulafioru,
each municipala'~y :urs its own maique set cf pclicies mad cc;aditions, fu;ll;er challzuged by
the camplexityof exteetaalities they face. For our industry this means learning and operating
within a new set of parameters each tinge a municipal boundary is crossed. In various
ways, municipalities atternpt to apply best practices with the intent to 6e more responsive to
businesses arul/or nacre sensitive to th.° needs of their ratepayers. Best practices deliver
~ciency, and help drive municipalities to compete amongst their peers ha an ever-
cotnpetitive economy.
T~da his inaugurations as BILD Chair, Leith Moore made if his mandate to reduce Red
Tape from floe development approval process.
LVhy is this valuable to municipalities? Reducing Red Tape eliminates unnecessary
bureaucracy while reducing eperating costs,• resulting in mare funding available to other
areas of the municipality and additional savings to the taxpayer.
Why this is valuable to our industry? Reducing Red Tape allows the land development
process to be snore ~cienat and cost effective. It also mans less delay for our end-users;
cmasumers waiting for homes and tetaants waiting for o~ce/industrial space.
Putting dais mandate into action, BILD devised a workinggroup. The discussions scaled
down to one central question -what are tke Municipal Best Practices? This question
was probed to BILD members utaderfour naaajorplanraing grad development processes: (1)
Preconsultation; (2) Site Plan Applications/Agreements (3) Plan of Subdivision
ApplicatiarulAgreementr, and (4) Letters ofCredil.
By identifying which municipal practices work best we are prepared to proyose
improvements to create e~riencies in the development approvals process.
We recognize Chad there are pros and cons to each component of the planning process and
when we understand bath sides (private and public) of the process, we are all better
equipped to make collaborative decisiens and chmages for the futuregood.
The following sections of this document recount the responses from the membership to dau
central question..
S~~
...
2 Hi '
m bG"tOtl:
FRGFE§rEnprk
3aMpN~ussy~Ja~
Preconsultation Best Practices -~
With the adoption of Bill 51, Preconsultation is mandatory and will often determine the
requirements ofa complete application, setting the tone ofthe entire development planning
review process. Recognizing that this process is a legislative requirement - it can be
.standardized across municipalities For consistency acid clarity.
The industry believes that the progressive municipalities...
(i) Recognize that preconsultation is alegislative requirement, and a key
feature to the public consultation process;
(ii) Have regularly scheduled (i.e. bi-monthly) Preconsultation meeting(s)
or ensure that a preconsultation meeting is scheduled within 2 weeks of
being requested;
(iii) }?usure that the appropriate senior staff and commenting agency staff
are all present at the meeting;
(iv) Provide a checklist of criteriarnformation prior to the preconsultation
meeting that an applicant is required to bring to the meeting or have
circulated to staff prior to the meeting;
(v) Clearly identify a list of criteria/information during a preconsultation
meeting to the applicant ensuring that they have met the municipal
requirements to consider an application complete;
(vi) Use a standardized list ofcriteria~nformation to consider an application
complete;
(vii) Proc~de sign-offby staffand the applicant for a list of
criteria/information required to consider the application complete,
.ensuring that a municipality does not request additional information
subsequent to a preconsultation meeting;
(viii) Provide a list of all staff contacts (name, title; telephone number, email
address) thatwill be circulated and/or commenting on the application.
3
Ihj
B.!!£. 6GAG8Wn3II7A
8P ~I dciya d3a~+J
t. As _,-.
Site. Plan Applications/A~reements Best Practices
Section 41 of the Pluming Act speaks to matters within a site plan control area. Our concern
for site plan applications/agreements is primarily the complex process of approving pLns or
drawings, leading to the execution of a site plan agreetent.
The industry believes that the progressive municipalities...
(i) Have standardized procedural manuals for the site plan application
process,
(ii) Do not make premature, unwan-auted and/or additional requests for
information that was not discussed and agreed upon during the
preconsultation meeting;
(iii) Provide an expedited plan iuput/plan review process, ensuring that all
.comments for an application are provided in a complete and timely
manner, and for these associated plans or drawings new comments are
not raised later in the process based on the original designs of the
application;
(iv) Allow drawings to be redlined, to avoid resubmission of an application
based on minor changes/amendments;
(v) Do not utilize apeer-review process (as our industry believe in-house
staff is more ef£cient and beneficial);
(vi) As an alternative to in-house staff, municipalities could exercise a
review process by which plan review is outsourced to neighbouring
municipalities;
(vii) Should remove the entire plan review process for engineering plans.
Due to the fact that certified Engineers must stamp their design for
quality assurance, and therefore drawings/plans should be accepted on
this merit, and not have to undergo plus review twice. Municipalities
will get the final check at site inspection;
(viii) Provide a draft site plan agreement at the request of the applicant after
the first round of comments has been addressed, or release the template
agreement to the applicant to enable the applicant to prepare the initial
draft;
(ix) Have pre-servicing agreements, which allows flexibility in the
development process and helps ensure deadlines to end-users;
(x) Use generic language in the site plan agreements, thereby not
refereucing specific utility companies in these agreements whe
multiple utility providers operate within the municipality. €h~
4 ~~
5JlrGtgGAG+1G37FRaA
c ~N-r.3 i~!~sF1"~d iaed
Plan of Subdivision Applications/A~reements Best Practices
Section Sl of the PlanniugAct speaks to Plan of Subdivision approvals. Our concern for the
Plan of Subdivision approvals is also the complex process of approving plans or drawings,
leading to the execution of a Plan of Subdivision agreement.
The industry believes that the progressive municipaflities...
(i) Like the site plan applicatiaL/agreenaentpractice, have pre-servicing
agreements, which allows flexibility in the development process and
helps ensure closing dates For consumers;
(ii) Like the siteplan application practice, have standardized procedural
manuals for the Plan of Subdivision Application Process;
(iii) Like the site plan application practice, do not make premature, wYwarranted
and/or additional requests For information that was not discussed and
agreed upon during the Preconsultation meeting;
(iv) Like the site plan application practice, provide an expedited plan input plan
review process, ensuring that all comments for an application are
provided in a complete and timely manner, and for these associated
plans or drawings new comments are not raised later in the process
based on the original designs of the application;
(v) Like the site plan applcation practice, allow drawings to be redlined, to
avoid resubmission of an application based on minor
changes/amendments;
(vi) Like the site plan application pracice, do not utilize apeer-review process
(our industry believe in-house staff is more efficient beneficial);.
(vii) .Like the site plan application practice and as an alternative to in-house staff,
municipalities could exercise a review process by which plan review is
outsourced to neighbouring municipalities;
(viii) Like the site plan applcation practice, should remove the entire plan review
process for engineering plans. Due to the Fact that certified Engineers
must stampxheir design for quality assurance, and therefore
drawings/plans should be accepted on this merit, and not have to
undergo plan review twice. Municipalities will get the final check at site
inspection;
(ix) Like the site plan agreement practice, provide a draft plan of subdivision
agreement at the request of the applicant after.the first round of
commenu has been addressed, or release the template agreement to the
applicant to enable the applicant to prepare the initial draft;
p~nS
5 i J ~ 6U tFiYGA GR&77:dGtd
P L gLGOa^ end[trJ
ono t z-~c6ur~
(x) Like the site ylan agreement yracttce, use generic language in their plan of
subdivision agreements; thereby not referencing specifee utility
companies in these agreements. This will ensure a competitive
marketplace for utility companies,
(xi) Allow model homes to be approved prior to pre-regisn~ation;
(xii) Do not commit builders developers to produce a site plan approval
requiremeirt for freehold townhouses within a registered plan of
subdi vision.
~a~ i
l~~ suearrocq~,seare~xc+n
e,aai:~~„"a»
Letters. of Credit Best Practices
As a rendition to the execution of a Site Plan ?,giee;nert/Plan cf Subdivision Agreer.~ent -
betters of Credit are the municipality's assurance of the intended work Qur concern is that
Letters of Credit have no flexibility and in some. cases are requested well before they are truly
required.
The iar€i.=stry he?ieves that the progressive ttiunicipalities...
(i) Utilize a global letter of credit. This letter of credit has the ability to
shi$ the funds across phases for larger projects with multiple phases.
This letter of credit can a]so be increased if regtired;
(ii) .Collect letters of credit at the building permit stage of a development,
as opposed to site plan/plan of subdivision agreement stage of a
development;
(iii) Should request landscaping letter(s) of credit after registration as
landscaping work does not occur until late in the development process;
(iv) Utilize letter(s) of credit For cash deposits (i.e. hydro uses letter(s) of
credit as the secm ity deposit instead of cash backl;
(v) Provide the builder/developer with an inspection(s) schedule of when
landscaping or engineering works can be inspected to enable the timely
reduction or release of a letter of credit;
(vi) Provide the list of criteria (in addition to the term in the site plan or
plan of subdivision agreement) that the inspector uses, prior to the
municipal inspection. This will ensure abuilder/developer knows what
is being inspected and can ensure compliance;
(vii) Request letters of credit that do not exceed -either the total value of
work and/or what is truly required.
~~a'
~i
i ~ ~:1{H~~Jr5rt1rFR4<a
~ PI ~'~Y srtl
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-059-10
1. Recognize preconsultafion is a legislative Current Clarington process
requirement and key feature The Municipality has adopted a by-law
requiring prewnsultation for the following
applications: official plan amendments;
zoning by-law amendments; site plan
applications; and proposed draft plans of
subdivision.
2. Preconsultation meetings should have a Review
regular bi-monthly schedule or take place Although regular bi-monthly meetings have
within two weeks of receiving the request not been used to date. Preconsultation
meetings are typically scheduled within twc
weeks of receiving a request or sooner,
unless the schedule of all participants does
not permit. Staff will review the benefits of
establishing regularly scheduled meetings
as o osed to an as needed basis.
3. Appropriate senior staff should participate Current Clarington process
together with commenting agency staff Preconsultation meeting requests are
reviewed with senior staff to determine
which staff, including senior staff, should
participate to ensure the meeting is
roductive.
4. Provide a check list of criteria/information Review
prior to preconsultafion meeting to bring to The applicanUagent is advised what
meeting or circulate to staff in advance of information to provide for review prior to a
meeting pre-consultation meeting. Staff will review
creatin a standard list.
5. Clearly identify a check list of criteria Current Clarington process
Mformation during preconsultafion meeting Following the introduction of Bill 51, Council
required to consider application complete adopted a By-law identifying the
preconsultafion process and the form and
list of possible information that is required to
be submitted with the a lication.
6. Use a standardized list of criteria~nformation Current Clarington process
to consider application complete .The list used during the preconsultafion is
reviewed against the submission to
determine com leteness of an a lication.
7. Provide sign-off by staff and applicant of Current Clarington process
required criteriaAnformation and do not The preconsultafion process currently
request additional information followed by the Municipality requires
minutes be prepared, summarizing the
meeting. These minutes are to be signed by
both the applicant and municipal staff
concurring with the contents therein and the
criteria information to be submitted with the
a lication to deem the a lication com lete
8. Provide list of aN staff contacts that will be Current Clarington process
circulated/comment on application The applicant meets staff from the agencies
attending the preconsultafion meeting.
Typically all circulated agencies are
requested to attend the preconsultafion
meeting. In addition, a list of circulated
agencies is provided to the applicanUagent
once the circulation has started
1. Have standardized procedural manuals for Current Clarington process
site plan application process. The Municipality is currently updating its
procedural manual to reflect adoption of Bill
51 changes including the pre-consultation
rocess
2 Do not make premature, unwarranted and/or Current Clarington process
additional information requests not identified Staff always attempt to identify all issues
during pre-consultation. and requirements through the pre-
consultation process. However,
occasionally an item or issue is missed.
Often new or additional items are identified
or requested in response to the findings of a
study/report or revisiohs submitted on an
a lication.
3. Ensure expedited process providing timely Current Clarington process
and complete comments on an application Staff provide a detailed response to the
and that new comments are not raised latter owner/applicant and agent including all
in process. municipal and agencies comments shortly
after the allowed three week circulation/
review eriod.
4. Allow red-line revisions to avoid Current Clarington process
resubmission where a minor change is Plans are often approved subject to red-line
required. revisions. However all revisions need to be
completed prior to final approval of plans.
This helps to ensure that everyone from the
contractor to the inspector is working with
the same drawin .
5. Do not use peer review. Current Clarington process
Generally the Municipality does not use peer
review. The exception to this is where staff
does not have the expertise required to
review technical information.
6. Outsource to neighbouring municipalities Current Clarington process
where in house staff not available. Except as identified above, municipal staff
reviews all a lications.
7. Engineering drawings should not be Disagree
reviewed; but accepted as stamped and This is a situation where interests are not
submitted. Final check to be done at site always the same. Stamped engineered
inspection. drawings often are revised more than once
even though municipal requirements are
specified. Final checks cannot be done in
the field, this is often too late.
8. Provide drag site plan agreement at the Current Clarington process
request of the applicant after first round of A template agreement is provided to the
comments has been addressed a licant earl in the rocess as re uested.
9. Have pre-servicing agreements, allowing Disagree
flexibility in the development process and Preparation of the pre-servicing agreement
helps meet deadlines. typically can't occur until most site plans
issues are resolved and delays the ultimate
site Ian a royal.
10. Use generic language in site plan Current Clarington process
agreements and do not reference specific The Municipality uses a site plan agreement
utility companies. template that is only altered to deal with
special conditions from a specific utility.
1. Have pre-servicing agreements, allowing Disagree
flexibility in the development process and Preparation of the pre-servicing agreement
helps meet deadlines typically can't occur until most issues are
resolved. Preparation of two agreements
dela s the ultimate subdivision a reement.
2. Standardized procedural manuals for Current Clarington process
subdivision application process The Municipality is currently updating its
procedural manual to reflect adoption of Bill
51 changes including the pre-consultation
rocess
3. Do not make premature, unwarranted and/or Current Clarington process
additional information requests not identified Staff always attempt to identify all issues
during pre-consultation. and requirements through the pre-
consultation process. However,
occasionally an item or issue is missed.
Often new or additional items are identified
or requested in response to the findings of a
study/report or revisions submitted on an
a lication.
4. Ensure expedited process providing timely Current Clarington process
and complete comments on an application Staff provide a detailed response to the
and that new comments are not raised later owner/applicant and agent including all
in process. municipal and agencies comments shortly
after the allowed three week circulation/
review eriod.
5. Allowred-line revisions to avoid Current Clarington process
resubmission where a minor change is Plans are often approved subject to red-line
required. revisions. However all revisions need to be
com leted rior to final a royal of tans.
6. Do not use peer review. Current Clarington process
Generally the Municipality does not use peer
review. The exception to this is where staff
do not have the expertise required to review
technical information.
7. Outsource to neighbouring municipalities Current Clarington process
where in house staff not available. Except as identified above, municipal staff
reviews all a lications.
8. Engineering drawings should not be Disagree
reviewed, but accepted as stamped and This is a situation where interests are not
submitted. Final check to be done at site always the same. Stamped engineered
inspection. drawings often are revised more than once
even though municipal requirements are
specified. Final checks cannot be done in
the field, this is often too late.
9. Provide drag agreement at the request of Current Clarington process
the applicant after first round of comments A template agreement is provided to the
has been addressed a licant earl in the rocess as re nested.
10. Use generic language in site plan Current Clarington process
agreements and do not reference specific The Municipality uses an agreement
utility companies template that is only altered to deal with
s ecial conditions.
11. Allow model homes to be approved prior to Disagree
pre-registration The Municipality does not allow pre-
servicin a reements. The zonin B -law
only allows one dwelling per lot, therefore
the plan must be registered to permit more
than one building permit to be issued for a
Do not require site plan approval for freehold Current Clarington process
townhouses within a registered plan of Freehold, street townhouses do not require
subdivision. site plan aooroval.
1. Use a global letter of credit (LC), providing
the ability to shift funds across phases for
larger projects.
2. Collect LC's at the building permit stage not
the development agreement stage.
after
4.
Current Clarington process
Staff have agreed to the principle of a global
(LC) to cover some development situations
involving multiple phases or projects.
Disagree
Letters of Credit must be in place prior to
issuance of authorization to commence the
works for which the (LC) is providing
security. It is essential.in the event of non-
performance of site works.
Letters of Credit related to landscape works
are usually related to road construction
unless they are part of a site plan aoreemen
Disagree
Value of Letters of Credit are specific as
5. Provide schedule when inspections can be Current Clarington process
completed allowing for timely reduction of Subdivision agreement allows for reduction
LC's. of LC as work is com leted and ins ected.
6. Provide criteria for inspection in advance of Current Clarington process
inspection to ensure compliance Staff works with the applicanUowner and
consultants to ensure criteria for inspection
Request LC's that do not exceed the total
value of the work or what is truly required.
current cianngton process
The value of LC is based on cost estimate
for work to be undertaken and is prepared
by the applicanUowner's consultant and
approved by staff. The value allows for