HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-277-90 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
BUILDING.GPA
REPORT File
- Res. #
By-Law #
METING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE, Monday, September 17, 1990
REPORT #: PD-277 -90 FILE #: PLN 30. 1
ACT: REPORT OF THE . BUILDING INDUSTRY LIAISON COMMITTEE ON
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT ANALYSIS; SITE PLAN PROCESS, BUILDING
PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS, LOT GRADING ANALYSIS, PARKING
REQUIREMENTS - FILE: PLN 30.1
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD- 277-90 be received for information; and
2 . THAT a copy of Report PD- 277 -90 be forwarded to Mr. Myer
Godfrey, Chairman, Building Industry Liaison Committee.
1. BACKGROUND:
1. 1 Council at their July 16, 1990 meeting endorsed the following
recommendation:
"THAT the communication dated July 4, 1990, from Myer
Godfrey, Chairman, Building Industry Liaison Committee,
requesting review and Council's comment pertaining to the
Report of the Building Industry Liaison Committee (BILC) ,
be received;
THAT the correspondence be referred to the Director of
Planning and Development for preparation of a report for
submission to the General Purpose and Administration
Committee; and
THAT Mr. Myer Godfrey be advised. "
. . .2
REPORT NO. : PD-277-90 PAGE 2
1.2 The Building Industry Liaison Committee (BILC) was formed in
October, 1988 and provided with a mandate to work together to
identify opportunities to streamline the housing development
process .
1.3 The Committee was made up of representatives from key
provincial ministries, municipal elected and appointed
officials from across the Greater Metropolitan Toronto Area
(GTA) , the development industry, builders, and all of the
professional associations involved in the housing development
process .
1.4 Five (5) sub-committees examined key elements of the process
being: subdivision agreements, site plan control, building
permits, lot grading, and parking standards . It was clear
from each of the Sub-Committee Reports that there was no
single cause or group responsible for delays within any
particular process . As such the recommendations contained
within the reports were specifically addressed towards the
Province, municipalities and the building industry.
2 . PURPOSE OF REPORT:
2 . 1 The purpose of the report is to review the recommendations
addressed to the municipalities and provide Council with an
overview of each of the Sub-Committee Reports.
2 .2 Staff would note for Committee's information that the Town was
requested to submit Town policy/procedural information to the
site plan process Sub-Committee only. The other Sub-
Committees did not include the Town within their municipality
survey.
. . .3
REPORT NO. : PD-277 -90 PAGE 3
3. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT ANALYSIS:
3 . 1 The initial recommendation of the Subdivision Agreement
Analysis Committee noted that inasmuch as there was an
extremely wide diversity of requirements in the agreements
reviewed, no efforts should be made at this time to
standardize the composition and format of agreements amongst
the member municipalities of the G.T.A. . With the terms of
agreements varying from municipality to municipality, any
standardization and resulting agreement that would include all
clauses catering to all municipalities would be in all
probability administratively unwieldy.
3 .2 Notwithstanding the first recommendation, the remaining three
(3) were put forth to encourage all municipalities through the
various professional associations to discuss and encourage any
possible standardization of agreements . The associations
suggested including the Municipal Engineers Association of
Ontario, the Association of Consulting Engineers and the
required Province of Ontario resources to review the existing
subdivision design standards and recommend the necessary
amendments to bring them up to contemporary levels and
practices and to consider the acceptance of consistent
standards.
3 . 3 The Building Industry Liaison Core Committee will act as the
co-ordinating body for this initiative.
4. SITE PLAN PROCESS:
4 . 1 Research by the sub-committee suggested that overall
conformity or the standardization of the municipal process and
. . .4
0
REPORT NO. PD-277-9 0 PAGE 4
development agreements will not be achieved and is not seen
as a realistic goal.
4 .2 The Sub-Committee in its conclusions stated that any major
strides to improving the site plan control process would
involve the following:
- the review and evaluation of existing policies, practices
and procedures
- the development of guidelines by the Province and
municipalities
- education and communication; and
- the consideration of minor changes to the existing
legislation.
4 . 3 The major observations relating to the above points as
effecting the municipalities included:
- reviewing existing Official Plan policies evaluating the
objectives and policies .
- update the enabling by-law to reflect any processing and
any procedural changes upon updating of Official Plan
policies .
- prepare guidelines and procedures to make the Owner aware
of municipal requirements .
- encourage preliminary meetings between planning Staff,
the Owner and/or consultant at the concept stage and
prior to making a formal application.
- municipalities should standardize their agreements and
review their effectiveness from time to time.
4 .4 Staff would note for the Committee's information that the
above goals are commonly shared and are an integral component
of the Department's site plan process .
. . .5
f 1..1
REPORT NO. : PD-277-90 PAGE 5
5 . BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS:
5 . 1 The Permit Processing Sub-Committee suggested that a
streamlined more efficient permit approval process will
provide benefits to a municipality which might include:
reduced staff commitment for unnecessary permit status
inquiries
increased staff availability for plan review, field
inspections, and assistance to the public
improved public relations due to smoother more effective
permit process .
5 .2 Early in 1989, municipalities forming the G.T.A. and specific
builder members of the Toronto Home Builders Association were
asked to identify key initiatives that could be implemented
by municipalities or the provincial government to speed up the
building permit process .
5 . 3 Results of the questionnaire and the study included the
following recommendations that would be addressed to any
particular municipality.
- establishing performance standards with respect to the
time required to issue a building permit (3 to 4 weeks)
- identifying the need for additional education and
training opportunities
- accepting building permit applications prior to
subdivision registration
- establish a uniform procedure for municipal
administration of repeat permits
- streamlining the circulation process required for
building permit applications .
. . . 6
REPORT NO. : PD-277-90 PAGE 6
5.4 It has been Staff's experience that in order to achieve the
first goal of establishing a reasonable timeframe for
processing building permits, the remaining objectives listed
are a necessary element that are presently included in the
department's present procedures . Past records reveal that an
average turn around period would fall within a 2 to 4 week
period.
5.5 The remaining key initiatives addressed in the Sub-Committee's
Report are ones addressed to the Province.
6 . LOT GRADING:
6 . 1 A letter introducing the Lot Grading Committee was sent to
eighteen ( 18) municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area. The
letter requested copies of each municipality's lot grading
requirements and procedures. The material collected was
reviewed from the standpoint of identifying an acceptable
standard that allowed necessary individual municipal
circumstances to be expressed. It became apparent that the
standard employed in the design of lot grading control of the
eighteen ( 18) municipalities was basically identical. Only
minor variations exist to allow for circumstances peculiar to
individual municipalities.
6 .2 Judging from the response of the municipalities, it did not
appear that any real problem with lot grading and its
implementation existed.
6 . 3 The Committee, drawing on the experience of its members
identified a problem termed to be the "run around" if a lot
grading problem arose.
. . .7
�1 t�
REPORT NO. : PD-277-90 PAGE 7
6 .4 Concern was expressed that the period between when the
builder/developer was to leave the project and the homeowner
is to move in, should any grading problems require the
necessary attention, difficulties arise in seeing that they
are completed by the appropriate individuals .
6 .5 The only recommendation addressed to the municipalities
requested that financial requirements (Letter of Credit) be
included in the subdivision agreement as a guarantee that lot
grading will be performed in due course to acceptable
standards . Any releases or reductions would only take place
at such time completion has been documented and accepted by
the Town.
6 . 6 Staff would confirm that the Town's subdivision agreement
presently requires that a Letter of Credit be provided as a
guarantee to ensure that the lot grading and drainage aspects
have been completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works . Acknowledging that time is of the essence, in
most transactions, "Temporary Occupancy" of the dwelling is
permitted prior to the completion of lot grading surrounding
the home. The requirement to complete the lot grading remains
with the builder/developer and his securities (Letter of
Credit) is not returned until the grading has been completed
satisfactorily.
7 . PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
7 . 1 The basic perspective of this Sub-Committee's document was
that the development approval process and development
standards can contribute to increased housing costs . That is
not to say that the process or standards should be eliminated,
. . .8
X95
REPORT NO. : PD-277-90 PAGE 8
however, they are to be appropriate and not excessive.
7 .2 The survey information received illustrated a wide variation
in both approach and requirements amongst municipalities . A
review of the various zoning by-laws gave rise to a range of
approaches:
- Some municipalities have adopted a sliding scale approach
based on unit size while others have chosen a single
standard regardless of unit size;
- Some municipalities vary the requirements between rental
apartment and condominium;
- Some municipalities vary the requirements by planning
district;
- Some municipalities vary the requirements by size of
building;
- Some municipalities have special requirements where
buildings are erected for seniors or assisted housing;
- Some municipalities base the requirements on floor area
as opposed to unit type;
- Some municipalities include visitors parking within the
basic requirement while others require an allocation for
visitors in addition to the basic requirement;
- Some municipalities require an allocation for
recreational and other vehicles .
7 . 3 The parking requirement survey also revealed that standards
range from 1.50 to 2 . 50 spaces/unit. The Committee suggests
that municipalities at the higher end should review their
present standards. The Town standards as contained in By-
law 84-63 would fall at the lower end of this scale.
. . . 9
REPORT NO. : PD- 277-9 0 PAGE 9
7 .4 The recommendations of this Sub-Committee based on the variety
of parking standards employed urged that all municipalities
in the Greater Toronto Area review their parking requirements
to ensure that the standards are appropriate and not
excessive. This recommendation included a request that the
Ministry of Housing establish general guidelines or a model
by-law approach to developing parking standards to facilitate
greater consistency.
8 . CONCLUSION:
8. 1 As noted throughout this report, the goals of the Sub-
Committees are generally shared by the Town of Newcastle and
many of their suggestions in streamlining the development
process have already been in practice.
8.2 We thank the Building Industry Liaison Committee for providing
the opportunity to the Town to review the reports of each of
the Sub-Committees and their individual findings .
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Franklin Wu, M.C. I.P. Lawrenco Kotseff
Director of Planning Chief Adm�17istrative
and Development Officer
LDT*FW*jip
*Attach
5 September 1990