HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL 06/99'158 , _ _
O�HaFp� . . . . . .
�
REPORT TO COUNCIL
FROM: Neil Carroll DATE: Aprii 19,1999
Director of Planning
PLANNING REPORT NUMBER: 6•99
SUBJEC7': Durham Plenning System Review
Phase i Report
RECOMMENDATION:
That Tawn Council endorse Ihe Durham Plenning System Revicw Phnse 1 Report, dnted
February 11,1999,nnd
Thet e capy of Planning Rcport 6-99 and Council's rcsolution respecting the Durham Planning
Review Systcm Revicw Phnsc 1 Report be fanvarded to the Rcgion of Durhum.
ORIGM:
Report genereted by Planning Systcm Rcview Tcnm consisting of planning rcprescntnti��es from
Durham Region and its municipulities.
Resolution of Regional Planning Committcc dnted March 16, 1999, thut Commissioncr's Rcpart
1999-P-24 respccling thc Planning Systcm Rcvicw Phnse I Report be fonvarded to local
municipulities for endorscment.
AUTHORITY:
The Planing Act, R.S.O. 1990, chnptcr P.13
FMANCIAL IMPLiCAT10NS:
The Review Team anticipates thet any shift in ndministrative costs associeted with implementntion
of ihe Phase 1 recommendetions should be minimal. As part of thc implementetion process Ihc
Review Tenm µ�ill investigate thc pinnning fees by-lews at both the Region nnd loca; municipal
Icvels in ordcr to minimize impacts. Any significant impacts would be addrcssed bcfore taking on
additionai responsibility.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
During 1998 a Plenning System Review Tenm was esinblished to undertake u camprchcnsivc rcvicw
of the current planning system in Durham Region. Pickcring was roprcscnted on the Tcam by the
Director of Planning. Thc necd for this review had been rccognized by Plnnning Dircctors of lhc
area municipalilies and the Chief Administmtivc Officcrs (C,A.O.), of thc Rcgion and locnl
municipalities (1997 Regional'Who Uoes What' Commiltcc Reparl). Chnnges to thc Plnnning Acl
and other Pmvinciel iniUetives providcd the opporluniry for the dcicgation of certain pinnning
approval authority to local municipulides. Pickering Council, nlong with Oshawo nnd Whitby
Councils, passed fortnnl rcsoludons rcqucsting thnt discussion teke pince rcspectf7g wrious
exemption and dclegation possibiUNes.
PLANNINdREPORTNUMBER 6-99 Datc: April t9,1999 159
• SubjecL Durhem Plenning System Review Pagc 2
The Durham Plenning System Phase 1 Report primerily eddressos lhe issue of development contral
npplica►lons, end scts out chenges that will eliminaldrcduce duplication. Willing host municipalilies
would be delegated fuli approval rcsponsibility for plens of subdivision, plans of condominium, part
lot control, and local official plan amendments. Btnefits of this dcicgetion includc one-window
service, a system that is simpler end less confusfng to the customer, end a streamlined and morc
locally involved process. A Phase 2 component of the review is recommended which wili address
the erea of Duta Collcction and Analysis, Studies, and Policy Formulation. This will include a
mview of the oppoAunities to share informetion end research, nnd to consolidate policy
dovelopment.
Durham Region Planning Committee received thc Durham Planning System Review Phnse I Report
on March 16, 1999, and directed lhat it be fonvarded to locul municipalities for lheir consideralion
and endorsement. Pickering staff endorse lhe r:commendnlions contnined in the rcport, und firmiy
believe ihat implemenWtion of thesc measurcs will bring significnnt improvements lo thc planning
system in Durham.
BACKGROUND:
I.0 Additionni lnformotion
In carly 1998, kcy stalT rcprcsentntivts from the Region nnd local municipnl Planning
DcpaAmcnls commenced n review of the pinn�ing systcm in Durham Region. The nced for
this review had been recognized 6� Plenning Dircctors of the aren municipalities nnd the
C.A.O.s of both thc Region and local municipnlitics (1997 Rcgionul `Who Docs What'
Committec Report). Changes to thc Planning Acl nnd othcr Provincinl initintivcs provided
lhc opportunity for thc dalegation of certnin pinnning approvul authority to locul
municipalities. In Fcbruary 1997, Pickering Council hed rcqacsled by resolution, that the
Region enlcr into discussions wi�h the Town rcspccting thc dclegution af pinnning approvals.
Thc busic objcctive of the Revicw Tcam was to prepnrc u conscnsus rcport outlining
rccommendntions for o morc effective and efficient planning sysicm. A fncilitator wns hircd
to guide thc analysis and discussions. Thrcc brond goals wcre set for the rcview: to crcate an
adnptive planning system; to strcamlinc the pinnning system; and �o dcsign a flcxible,
conlinuously improviag planning systcm. The objcctive of thc rcvicw wos to identify
opportunities to tmnsfer, sharc, or othcnviu paAner the dclivcry uf pinnning scrviccs, in
order to improve thc volue nnd effectivcness of thcsc scrviccs.
The Review Tenm initielly id�ntificd Ihe planning scrvice areas in which both lhe Region
and !ocal municipalitics aro presenlly involved. Areac were then idenlified which provided
good opportunitv for system improvement. These ercas fcll into two catcgories as follows;
(I) PlnnningApprovelProcesses
• officiel plan amendments
• subdivision of lend
(2) Policy und Research
• dnta collection and nnnlysis
• studies
• policy fortnulation
The Phuse I Report primarily addresses lhe area of plaontng approval procea�ca. This area
provided the bcst opportunily for system improvemenl in the short-tcrtn, Thc Planning
Approvel Processes roviewed included lhe following:
• Regionel Officiol Plan Amendments
• Local Officiel Plen Amendments
� Subdivision/Condominium Approvals
• Pert Lot Control Approvals
� Consent Approval by Reglonnl Land Divfs(on Committee
The rcsommendetion of the Phase I Repart is thnt willing host munic(pniitics would bc
delegeted full epproval responsibility for Plens of Subdivision, Plans of Condominium, and
Pert Lot Control, subjecl to guidelines. Lael Officiel Plen Amendmcnts would 6c excmpt
:ri
PLANNINaREPORTNUMBER 6•99 Date: Apol19,1999
�� 16 (�ubJect; Durhem Plenning System Review i Pege 3
�,
from Regionnl approval, subject to guidelines, Dclegetion of Regionel U;7icial Plen
Amendmonts wes not an option. With respect to Consent approval, it wes the cbnsensus of
the Review Te.vn thal the prcsent system (with applicetions being considercd by �the Durham
Lend Dieision Committee), should be mainteined, but that the process should be exam(ned to
find improvements.
The recommendations of the Phase 1 report wero shared with agencies and roprescnmtives of
ihe development industry at n working session, prior to finalizing lhe report (Urban
Development Institute, School Boa�ds, Conservation Authorities). Those in attendence
supported the proposals and indicated interest in being involved in the Phasc 2 review.
Implementation of Phesc 1 recommendations invulve thc preparation of agrecments or
memorandums of undersWnding between eren municipnlities and thc Region, the
development of necessary procedures end protocals to eflect the transfer of approval
aulhority, and the training of steff to take on the ncw rcsponsibilitics. It is anticipaled thnt
ihese mettcrs covld bc nddresscd by lhe Fell of 1999, in order that Jelcgation/exemption
could come into cflbct by early 2000. In ordcr to take on full responsibilities for Phase i
recommended approvals, il will bc necessary for Council to ndjust fces to account for and
accommodete nny required additional planning/udminislralive resources. The Review Team
will investigate the pinnning fees by-Inws nt both the Rcgion and locul municipal levcls to
minimizc impncts.
It is recommended by the Rcview Twm that Phase 2 of the Plnnning Systcm Review address
the erca of Duw Colleclion und Analysis, Sludies, and Policy Formulution. This will includc
a rcvicw of thc opporlunitics ta shorc informntion nnd rescarch, nnd to consolidate policy
development.
2.0 'scuss o
The recommcndations af thc Durham Planning Syslem Rcview Phnsc I Rcport arc supported
by the Plenning DcpnAmcnt. Implcmenmtion ef the rccommendntions will bring one-
window service, a system ihat is simpler nnd less confusing to thc customcr, nnd a
strenmlined and morc locelly involvcd proccss. Matters identificd for enalysis in Phnsc 2
nlso hold great potentinl for system improvemcnt nnd cconomics in the use of plunning
resources.
ATTACHMEAIT:
I. Lener from Regionai Clerk (including Pinnning Commissioner's Rcport and lhe Durhnm
Planning System Review Phase 1 Reporl) �
Prepurcd end Endorsed By:
i �
Neii Ca
Directorof nnning
NC/bo'c
Atmchments
Recommended for ihc cansideration af
Pickering Town i cil
,v ,.
' ,�;��jp 9 ,
mns ]. Q ' n,
ChiefAdministrat(ve 0((icar
n: �. .
ny arota�.i
d��b
�
��
ea� ez+
1815 Dudae SL E.
�Ih Fba Latq Toner
we� e�
wnroy. oo�o
Caneda LiN 8A7
Teh (805) M&7T91
Fex:(905)q66812
A. L 6�apbtl� rar� w�
CoimJ�ioner
dPlanNq
March 26,1998
ATTACHMENTq_L�TO
. PLANIJINO HEPOR7 M L_ 9f
- 161
RECEIVE[b
TOWN OF PICKEPIMCi
� 2 9 �999
� �O� . 9LERICbpEPAR7MEN1
� ' �o
Mr. B or
' RECEIVED
TOWN OF PICKERING .. MAR 3 1 1999
Civic Coinplex'
1 The Esplanade • ' • Pw i�,r'aur/uEnuni
Pickering, ON 1.1V 6K7 . '
Dear Mr. Tay�or:
Re: Commissioner's Report No. 1999-P-24 �
Durham Planning System Review Phase 1 Report
Fu9: z.ii.s '
The above matter was prasenled to lhe Durham Regional Planning
Committee at the March 18, 1999 meelfng. The following resolution was
passed: '
"a) THAT Commissioner's Report No. 1999-P-24 be received
for infotmalion and forward lo local municipalilies (or
endo�sement, lhe Planning System Review Phase 1 Report
attached toFCommissioner's Report #1999•P-24; and
b) THAT a copy ot Commissioner's Report No. 1999-P-24 be
senl to lhe stakeholders involved (n lhe review process."
Acco[dingly, we look forward to your Council's response to Ihis resoluUon.
,' A copy of lhe Report (s enclosed for yaur information.
Yours truly, • •
. ' � u?� ` "
�im Blair, M.C.LP., R.P.P.
Director • ' '
Current Operations . •
/wk
Encl. . ,
c.�
,�..��� . .
,.
�t'�, `� , .�. ` , . . , i„ , .. . . . .. . . � . . . - . , . . . . �
, . . .
ATTACHMENTN � TO
I� 1�'� . � PLANNINQ REPORT p 6"91
Pianning Oepartment
Comm(ssioners Report to Planning Committee
Report No. 1999•P-24
Date: March 18, 1999
SUBJECT
Durham Planning Syatem Review Phaae 1 Report
Correspondence No. 97-233 from Sandra Kranc, Manager of Support Servfces, City
of Oshawa
Cortespandence No. 97-404 from Mr. Donald G. McKay, Town Clerk, Town of
Whitby
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Plannfng Committee receive for informalion and forward to locai
municipalities tor endorsement, lhe Planning System Review Phase 1 Report
attached to Commissioners Report No. 1899-P-24; and
2. THAT a copy ot Commissfoner's Report No. 1989•P-24 be sent to the
_ stakeholders involved In the review process.
HEPORT
1. Durfng 1097, several local municipal counciis in Durham, passed resolulions
requesting that the delegation of plan approval functions from the Region to
the lacal municioalities, be investigated. The need for a review af the
planning system was also identified in lhe 1997 Regional'INho Does WhaP
Committee report prepared by the C.A.O.'s of lhe Region and local
municfpaiities. With this in mind, during 1998, the Durham Planning Directors
unde�took a comprehensfve review. The broad goal was to create an
adaptfve planning system that was slream-lined and capable oi continuously
improving, The result would be a more eNective Plann(ng System,
2. A Plannfng System Review Team (Team) was eslabli3hed with
representatives from lhe Region and each ot lhe local municipalities. A totel
of nineteen meepngs took place during 1998 and January 1889. The Team
� �l
ATTACHMENT n_�TO
PLANNINp AEPORT N�
16�
Commias(oner's Report 1999•P-24 Page 2
worked together using e co�laborative approach. Decisions were based on
analysfs, judgement and consensus. The use of en oulside tacflitator
fostered openness, ensured the process was run eHfcienlly, recognized and
respected lhe diverse fnterests of the participanls, and helped drive the
discussions toward a package of implementable recommendaNans. A
number of stakeholders were also invited to provide input an how to make the
planning system more effective end e�icfent.
3. Within two broad categories, the Team recoynized five planning service
areas as providing lhe best apportunity for system fmpravement:
(a) Planning Approval Processes
• oHicial plan amendments;
• subdivfsion o( land;
(b) Policy and Research
• data colleclion and anaryses;
• studles; and
• policy formulation.
4. The attached Phase 1 Repori, recommends direclians for improving lhe
Plann(ng Approval Processes. The Policy and Research planning services
areas also provide improvement opporlunitfes, but would require more time,
addilional input and involvement of other staff resources lo develop
recommendations, These areas will be addressed during Phase 2 of the
revfew.
5, In lhe area of Planning Approvai Processes, the altached report recommends
that lhe Planning System Rev(ew Team implement aclion to carry out lhe
following directions:
(i) examine appo�tuniQes to enhance the Regional Oflfcial Plen
Amendment process;
(ii) exempt approprfate Local OFficial Plan Amendments from Reg(onal
�
91
. ..-_.a�.. ...9 �.. ,.. ......�:.. .,< af... . _ .. .
ATTACNMENTN � TO
'•. • � PLANNIN� REPORT M 6-99
�. 164�
Commias(aner'a Repo�t 1999-P-24 Page 3
approval;
(iii) delegate subdfvisioNcondom(n(um approvals to willing host local
munic(pal(tfes;
(iv) delegate part-lot control by-law approvals to local municipalities; and
(v) examine opportunilies to enhance lhe current consent granting
system.
Implemantation of these Phase 1 directions, wouid be undertaken by the
Planning Review Team, by lhe end of 1989. This would (nclude eny approval
ot Regfonal or Local Counciis (eg. memorandum of agreements, by-laws,
etc.).
� 8. In the area of Data Colleclion and Analysis, Sludles, and Poflcy Formulation,
lhe Planning Syalem Review Team wauid coordinate an examinat(on of
service delivery Improvements. This would involve the preparat(on of a
Plann(ng Syatem Review Phase 2 Report with appropriete recommendations
to Reglonal Council end local munic(pal Councils. '
7. Any shift in admin(stralive costs resulting from (mplementaUon of Phase 1
direcUons were Judged by the Team to be min(mal. Benefits will came from
the ralionalization of functions/responsibilities and a re-designed syslem that
is simpler. The var(ous stakeholders cansulted, generally support lhe
directiona nnd wish lo work wilh the Team on the details of ImplementaUon.
8. It is recommended that Plann(ng Commitlee rece(ve the attached Planning
Syalem Review Phase 1 Report for informalion, and that the Report be
forwarded to local municipalities for endorsement. Upon receipt of local
Council endorsement, Plann(ng Comm(ttee would then be fn a position to
recommend the Phase 1 directfons tor approval by Regional Councll, It is
also recommended that the Phase 1 Reporl be sent to the varfous
alekeholders fnvolved fn the revfew process.
. _ �i ?
r,
�� 1 . Y i h ; � Y� Y �! f . -0 i� t' �-. ... ..... . .. ._.
;� }.. t �f �.. 2- � � � �� t�` v - 4f .� � � . ".: .._ ' ,'. � :
4 � � i A77ACNMENTa � TO
;�, �. , PLANNINO REPORT k �-99
' � 165�
.,
Commiaaloner� Report 1999�P- 24 Page 4
� ,
�
'`� A.L. Geo ef , .C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner of Planning
Attachmenf: Durham Planning System Review Phase 1 Report (February 11,1989)
RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTA710N TO COMMITfEE
� �
'G. . Cubitt, M,S.W., C.A.O. •
� . � � H1�.M'JtlY1111YP�Y1�M/llllWD � � � .
. . .. .. ,... .
. . � . , .. . . . ., ,
. .. , - . , .., ,,, ..
.
: ,: .: ... , ,- . , s .. . ..
i �t .
? 43
�_
F: }
;;
} ;�.
ATTACHMENTM � TO
PLANNINO REPORT M G-99
166
DURH�IM PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW
PHASE 1 REPORT
� Prepared by Planning System Revlew Team of the Reglon and Local MunlclpallHes �
��i
� 1�
. . . _ .. . . . . _ 'Pn 0�
February 11,1999
,-,. ,.�_ �� . .._ .._ .. ..
i {f.��� �.� �
i
ATTACHMENTa � TO
iv PUINNIN(i REPOR7 p L-99
167
�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RecommendedActions .......................................1
1.0 Introduct(on ...........................................2
2.0 Goals ................................................2
3.0 ObJectives ............................................3
4.0 Team Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.0 Rev(ew Process ........................................4
6.0 Identiflcat(on of Plannfng Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.0 Recommended Phase 1 Actions Regarding Planning Approval
ProcessImprovements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1 Regfonal Qfficial Plan Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7,2 Local O�c(al Plan Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2.1 Guidelines for Exempt(on of Local Official Plan Amendments 6
7.3 Subdivision/Condominium Approvals . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3.1 Gufdelines for Delegatfon of Subdivision Approvals ........ 8
7.4 Part-Lot Control Approvals. . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.5 Consent Approval by Regional Land Divislon Committee ... 11
8.0 Recommended Phase 2 Actlons Regardfng Data Collection and
Analysis, Studies, and Policy Formulatfon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.0 Next Steps and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.0 Conclusfons ..........................................14
" 9 �i
� • �t p� , �''� }�`; '�'i
et : � . ,
� � � � i , .. ,f _� ..
_�� " � �
' A;TACHMF.9T M�70
� � p�N41N�! HEPORT a�
16� :r
� 3�.. ° �' � . . . .
r, .:
�` ,
. . .. ' . .. - � . . � -. � . .
TECHNICAL COMPENDIUM '
Appendix 1 ` Plannfng System Review Work Plan
Append(x 2' Types of Planning Servfce
Append(x 3 Service Delivery OPTIONS and PRO/CON Analys(s
�; '
� � ��� ��' �
;�'
. i�. � ,�
;� r
j,. ,
1F E
#'`
7/ �
C ,, ,.
�i`
> � i!-� �
� = iF �
�"
,� ,
,F -
3
_ E : _
� f , _
;�
�
: ..
9Ei ,t r _
� � , . . _ , . _.
,-, ".. . , _,: :' a. .>. � . F ... A " `�' .
�.
., -, -. ' �..... . . ..:� � � . .. .'. 4.: � .. .. . .
ATfACHMENTN � TO
PLANNINa REPORT N 6 -99
Recommended Actio�
In the area of Pianning Approval nrocesses, it is recommended:
(i) that opportunitles to enhance the cunent Regional Official
Plan Amendment process, as fdentifled fn Section 7.1 of this
Report, be examined by a sub-commfttee consf5tfng of
representation from the Region and local municipalittes;
(ii) that the exemption of Local Offlcial Plan Amendments be
implemented in accordance with the gufdelines and process
identifled in Sectfon 7.2 of this Report;
(ili) that the approval function for subdivisionlcondominium
applicatfons be delegated to willing host local
munfcipalfties, in accordance with the delegatior� principles
and guidelfnes identified in Section 7.3 of this Report;
(fv) that the approval function for part-lot control by-laws be
delegated to local municipalities, subject to conditions In
the Regional Council delegatlon by-law and agreement on
detailed procedures;
(v) that the existing approval funct(on for consents remain with
the Regional Land Division Committee, with an examfnation
of potential enhancements to the current system; and
(vl) that the implementation steps oudlned fn Sections 7.0 and
8.0 and 9.0 of this Report be carrfed out by the Plannfng
System Review Team as part of Phase 2 of the Review.
In the area of Data Collection and Analysis, Studies, and Policy
Formulation, it is recommended that, as part of Phase 2 of the Review,
a sub-committee with representatlon from the Region, the area
munic(palities and other stakeholders should review these planning
services, in accordaRCe with the guldetines set out fn Sectlon 8.0 of
this Report.
9 °r
169
ATTACHMENT M�TO��pq
PUINNINO REPOR7 M�_
� 170
P.� �
1.0 Introduction
The context of planning in Durham fs changing rapidly and the planning
system must respond in a sound and proactive fashion, With this in mind
during 1996, the leaders of the Durham Planning System undertook a
comprehensive planning system review. This initiative was in recognition
that opportunities existed to seek efficiencies and streamline the planning
system in areas of overlap and duplication of service delivery. Some
municipal Councfls in Durham had prev(ously passed resolutlons requesting
that the delegation of plan approval and review functions from the Region to
ihe local municipalities be investigated. The need for a review was also
identified in the 1997 Regional "Who Does WhaY Committee Report
prepared by the CAO's of the Region and local municipalities.
�• 2.0 Goals: • �
The following three broad goals for the planning system review were
established:
�oal 1- Create an Ada�tiv,� Planning Svstem
... Considerable downward delegation of responsibilities has recently occurred ...
• belween the various Provincial ministries and the Region. Accompanying
this is new enabling legislation that allows the further delegation/exemption
of approval responsibility from the Region to the local municipalities, The
new Durham Planning System should take full advantage of these
opportunities.
Soal 2- Streamlfne the Plannin9 System
To develop a streamlined planning system where the activities of all
participants improve and speed up the decision making process. A one
window system provides a focal point for the receipt of applications,
processing of information, and analysis. This benefits all of the participants
in the planning system, including the public, developers and various
agencies. Increased effectiveness, timeliness and certainty will be
hallmarks of the new system.
�. �• �, . -. � • �, � � u� � �� • .�� �� -u
There is every indication that our operating environment will continue to
4 s3
�
ATTACHMENT M_LTO
PLANNINO REPOflT N�
111
. Page 7
change rapidiy. Our planning system must be able to anticipate change and
proactively adjust to it before the change occurs.
3.0 Objectives
The objective of the revfew was to fdentify opportunities t� transier, share or
otherwise partner the delivery of plannfng services, in order to fmprove lhe
value and effectiveness of these serv(ces. This review and approp�iate
follow-up should achieve one or more of the following benefits:
• improved service delivery;
• enhanced seroice accessibllily for the public;
• clarified local govemment service responsibilit(es for the public; �� : •�
• (mproved/enhanced quality of service;
� enhanced recognition of the (nput of various stakeholders in the
plannfng system;
• (mproved efficiency of servfce delivery; and/or
• (mproved planning decfsions.
The result should be a more effective Planning System.
4.0 Team Composftion
The review Team was composed of one member with planning
responsibility from the Region of Durham and each of the eight local
municipalities, as well as a facilitator working outside the plannfng area.
5.0 Review Process
The Team worked together using a collaborative approach. Decfsions were
based on analysis, judgement and consensus. Consensus meant that any
recommendations were to be generaily acceptable to all participants, in the
sense that everyone was prepared to "live with them" and support them
back in their home jurisdiction, The use of an outside facilitator fostered
openness, ensured the process was run e�ciently, recognized and
4J
AT7ACHMENT p � TO
. PLANNINO REPORT N 6'% _
� 172
Page 4
respected the diverse interests of the participants, and helped drive the
d(scussions toward a package oi implementable recommendations.
The review began in early 1998 with the organization of the review, the
development of the terms of reference, and ihe hiring of the facilitator. The
facilitated review started in April 1998 and included 13 half-day meetings
(approximately every 2-3 weeks with the exception of July and August) and
finished in November 1998. The Work Plan for each of the meetings is
included as Appendix I of the Technical Compendium to this Report. A
number of subsequsnt meetings were held to finalize the Report.
At a special meet(ng of the Team held on December 17, 1998, a nurtiber of
stakeholders were invited to provide input on how to make the plannir�g
system more effective and e�cient. Those stakeholders invited include�t:
school boards, conservation�authorities, police services, Urban
Development Institute, Durham Homebuilders and Ministry of Municipal
Affairs.
6.0 Identificatfon of Planning Serv(ces
Initlally the Team generated a list of ten Planning Service Areas fn which
_._ _. both the Region and the local municipalities are involved fn varying degrees. ,
� (refer to Appendix 2 of the Technical Compendium). The Team recognized
five of these Planning Service Areas as candidates for initial review, and
that, if examined in detall, would provide the best opportunity for early
system Improvement. These five areas fall in to two basic catergories:
a) Planning ARproval Processes which Includes:
• Officlal Plan Amendments which involves Regional O�cial Plan
Amendments; and Local Official Plan Amendments; and
• Subdivision of Land which involves subdivision/condominium
approval, Part-Lot Control Approval, and Consent Approval by
Land Division Committee (LDC).
b) Policv and Research which includes:
• Data Collection and Analys(s;
• Studies; and
• Policy Formulation.
;i Q
�
ATTACHMENTN � TO �
PLANNINO REPORT M 6 "y
173
Pege 5
It was agreed that the Phase 1 topic areas would include the planning
approval processes as noted above. These provided the best opportunities
to streamline the process, lhereby promoting an effective and efficient
planning system. The other types of planning services involving Policy and
Research also provide similar opportunities, but would require more time,
additional input from stakeholders, and involvement of other staff resources
to develop recommendations. These areas will be addressed in Phase 2 of
the review.
7.0 RECOMMENDED PHASE 1 ACTIONS REGARDING PLANNING
APPROVAL PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS
The following (s a general outline of the process used to examine each
Planning Approval Process: • • • �
• identified macro process;
• examined strengths, weaknesses and opportunities to fmprove for
each macro step; �
• fdentified various service delivery options;
• examined the pros and cons for each option;
• an(ved at a preterred vision for the process; and
� agreed on a recommended approach for preferred optfon.� �
The Work Plan outlined in Appendix 1 oi the Technical Compendfum further
details the process and highlights the major outcomes of the process.
7.1 Regional Offic(al Plan Amendments
Sfnce delegation was not an option, the focus oi dfscussion was on potentfal
improvements (n the curr�nt system. The Team identified a number of
areas of potential process improvement as follows:
• overcome public meeNng overlap between sfte-spec(fic regional and
local officlal plan arnendments by efther having Joint public
51
��. ,..�.�:..� ,.
. �IY
A7TACHMENTa _LTO
PLANNINO REPOF7 q G.yq
Page 6
meetings/noticeslminutes or some form oi consol(datfon of all statulory
public meetings;
• review duplication of application forms by having joint regional and
local forms;
• avoid overlap in circulation with other applications by consolidating
circulation; and
• clarify roles and responsibilities regarding coordination and sign-off on
technical studies (eg: environmental (mpact studiss).
Opportunities such as ihe above require careful examination. The Team
recommends that a sub-committee, with representat(ves irom the
Region and local municfpalities, should review opportunitfes tn this� ••
area and recommend process improvements.
7.2 Local Official Plan Amendments
.. Regional Council, on January 29, 1997, agreed to the princfple of exempting
certain types of Local Official ('lan Amendments irom Region approval. As
. a result, the Team did not undertake a review of options. The Team
discussed the principle and guidelines for granting exernption. The Team
also agreed that a general list of matters that reflect Regional interests to
guide the process should be developed.
The Team felt it was important that all Local Official Pian Amendments that
are locally significant should 'ne exempt. The local municipality would be �••
notified of such exemption near the beginning of the process by the
Regional Planning Commissioner, after consuitation. The Team agreed on
the following as a general guide to matters of Regional interest.
7.2.1 Guldelines for Exemntion uf Local Officlal Plan Amendments
The Region shall exempt all local official plan amendments except where a
Regionai interest fs identified. The Region may have an fnterest in
amendments that:
- are not conformity with the Regional O�cial Plan or have a concurrent
Regional Official Plan Amendment;
,
J �.
A'lTACHMENT M�T06 � 0
HLANNIN� REPORT M�
175
Page 7
- substantially impact on Reg(onal servicing and road (nfrastructure;
- substantially change Regional capital forecasts;
- substantially impact regional traffic flows;
- lnvolve major secondary plans;
- propose large retail facilities with a regional Craw;
- involve significant environmental issues;
- are located in or impact on the Oak Ridges Moraine;
- are in proximity to majormineral aggregate resources; -• •
- are in proximity to or including contaminated sites;
- are In proximity to sewage treatment plants and landfill s(tes;
- have major cross boundary (mpacts; and
- propose non-farm development in the rural area. .
The process to fmplement exemptions will include the following. Local
municipalities will submit amendment applications and any necessary
supporting information to the Region in sufficient time to allow review and
preparation of comments on the appllcations. The Region's written
response (within 30 days) will include a written notice that the amendment
applicatlon is or is not exempt, using the criteria above as a general guide.
A decision not to exempt will be made in consultation wilh the local
municipality. • •
With this overall direction set, the next steps would include:
• preparatlon of detalled procedures in consultation with local
muNcipal staff; '
• approval of an exemptlon by-law by Regional Councli; and
• request irom Regional Council to the Ministry of Municipal Affat�s
J �)
i`; ATTACHMENTN � 70 �
• � ��y PLANNINO REPORT N �'%
� p
P�ge 8
and Housing for authorizatlon tA implement the exemption
process.
T.3 Suhdivision/Condominium Ap rovals
Five options were considered by the Team:
(a) maintain status quo;
(b) delegate entire process to local munic(palities;
(c) partlal delegation to local municipalities by part of macro process (eg,
application receipt and circulation);
(d) partfal delegation to local munlcipalities by type of application (e.g: •� ��•�
rurallurban, standard/complex etc.); and
(e) delegate entire process to willing host local municipalities.
= The pros and cons of each option were examined: •Refer to Appendix 3 for• a�
• list of pros and cons of each option.
It was egreed that Option (e), delegate entire process to willing host
local municipalftles, was the recommended option. The delegation of
subdivision approval could improve customer service by simplifying the
process and potenlially result in a faster process.
The Team agreed on the following delegatton principles/gu(delines to
add;esslprotect Regional flnanctal and policy interests.
7.3.1 Guidelines for Delegation of Subdivislon AR r�ls
Delegation of all authority to approve plans of subdivision would be oftered
to willing local municipalities. A specified effective date would be mutually
agreed to by various parties.
The local municfpality, in considering applications for plans of subd(vision,
would agree to ensure:
- conformity with Durham O�cial Plan polic(es on the basis of the
opinion of the Regional Commissioner of Planning; and
J �{
AT7ACNMENTq � TO
: pIANNINO REPORT N_�-Y9
177
� ' ' Page 9
- conformity with the local OKc(al Plan on the bas(s of the opinion of the
chief local planning o�cial.
Local municipalities that opt to assume subdivision approval authority, would
execute a Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU) with the Reglon prior to
assuming delegation. This would outline how matters of Regional interest
would be addressed, define procedures and requirements, define roles of
tt�e Region, the municipality, the Conservation Authority and other agencies
in the process, and clarify a dispute resolution mechanism, all modelled as a
partnership. The following conditions and matters, amongst others, would
form the basis for the MOU:
- to initially assume delega8on for all ex.isting files that have not
progressed to draft approval and to review ihe balance of lhe existing
files with a view to further delegation;
- to assign file numbers in a particular manner, as set out by the Region
in consultation with local municipal staff;
. - to use a common form for all applications as set out by the Region in ..
consultation with local municipal staff;
- to collect all of the Regfon's application fees;
- to have regard for Provincial interests and the Provincial Policy
Statement as identified by the Regional Commissioner of Planning in
all decisions;
- to address the Regional policy and interests as required by the
Regional Commissioner of Pianning in all decis(ons;
- to review and evaluate delegation within one year in conJunction with
the Region, with a view to continuous improvement of the planning
system;
- to provide a notics of application receipt and drafUfinal approval
decisions, on a timely basis including statistical information;
- to provide an annual statistical report by March of each year, on the
number and status of plans and the number and type of un(ts
J �)
IANNHNO REPO�T ','�—=`
. 1'i8
, . � • Page 10
approved in the prevfous year (using receipt, draft approval,
registration and building permit Issue as the categorization of data);
- to inform the Region if the authority to approve has been further
delegated to a committee or an appointed o�cer; and
With the overall direction set, the next steps would include:
• completion of a Memorandum of Understandfng that reflects the
guidelines for delegation above and clearly defines the
redesigned process; and
• adoption of delegation by-law by Regional Council.
7.4 P�rt-Lot Control A� rn ovals
Four options were considered by the Team:
(a) maintain status quo; �
(b) delegate entire approval process to local municipalit(es;
(c) delegate to the entire approval process to Region; and
(d) partial delegation of approval process to local municipalitfes by type of
application (e.g. within a registered plan of subdivision and frontage on
a local road).
The pros and cons of each option were examined. Refer to Appendix 3 of
the Technical Compendium for a list of pros and cons of each option.
It was agreed lhat Optfon (b), delegate entire approvai process to local
municipalitfes, was the recommended optlon, This delegat(on
administratively streamlines the process. Use oF part-lot control implements
a predictable lot arrangement and does not affect any feature of the
subdivision to which the public or ihe other agencfes have an interest (e.g.
walkwayslstreet layout, public lands, water and sewer services or
capacities). The Region's interests have been adequately addressed fn the
subdivision approval,
With this overall direction set, the next steps would include:
�r
ATTACHMENT k � TO � r �
, ' �LANf�INO REPORi p�
Page 1 I
• adoptlon ot a deiegatlon bylaw by Regional Council, which woutd
establish conditions deflning the scope of its use and how
Regional interests would continue to be satisfled; and
� preparailon of detailed procedures in consultatlon with iocal
municlpal staff.
7.5 Consent An roR val by Regional Land Division Committee
Four options were considered by the Team:
(a) maintain status quo;
, (b) delegate entire process to local municipalities;
(c) partial delegation to local municipality by type of application (e.g.
leases, easements, farm-related etc.); and
(d) delegate ent(re process to willing host local municipality.
The pros and cons of each option were examined. Refer to Appen�iix 3 of
. Technical Compendium for a list of pros and cons for each option.
It was agreed that Option (a), maintain status quo was the
recommended optlon, with a goal to analyze the current system, to
further enhance it. This recognized that the existing system fs eftective
and efficient, results in consistencies across the Region, and there are no
- sfgnificant service delivery advantages of delegating this function, at this -�� ���
time.
: I � ' � II II : � � • i ' � . � � ' � • � . � � � � . . � � � , � �
1 I . � • . � � ' � � II . � 1
The recommendations outlined in the Phase 1- Review of Planning
Approval Processes, have laid a good foundation for the consfderation of
improvements in the other Planning Services Areas. With the direction and
the identification of next steps for the Phase 1 agenda complete, the Team
turned its attention to the Piannfnp Service Areas of Data Collection and
Analysis, Studies, and Policy Formulation.
J%
. 1S O ATTACHMENT p�_TO
. PIANtJINO,REPORT q t -99 .
° Page 12
The importance oi Data Collection and Analysis, Studfes, and Pol(cy
Formulation, is the role they play in assfsting the decision making process,
These Planning Service Areas provide the necessary information or
framework to guide appropriate and informed decisions, from support staff
to Council, at both the local municipalities and the Region. The availability
or ease of access to these items also affects the timeliness of decisions.
Consistency of approach is also important.
The review of these three Planning Service Areas should identi(y
opportunities to improve the value and effectiveness of service delivery, in
terms of the benefits listed in Section 3- Objectiv�;,, of this Report.
In revfewing the manner in which Data Collection and Analysis, Studies and
Poticy Formulat(on are dealt with and by whom, the following parameters
• should be considered to improve the value of these planning seroices:
• • the importance of these items for decision making;
• the ability and ease of using (nformation;
• the e�cfent communication of information;
� the cost e�ciency of generating and updating informat(on and
analysis;'
� who can best generate and/or maintafn particular items;
• (ntegration/coordination of exlsting and new data collection efforts; and
� the collectfon and sharing of data for needs not currently met.
A review of these Planning Service Areas should follow sfmilar steps as the
Phase 1 Plannfng System Review;
� who are the players involved;
• what data, studies, poticy activitles currently exist;
• who produces which type of data, studies, and pol(cy;
• analyze the strengths and weaknesses of cunent system;
58
A7iACHMENip�TO
�IANNINO flEPORT q�.�
181
. . . . Page 13
• where appropriate, determfne optional procedures;
• assess the pros and cons of each option;
• make recommendatlons; and
• address sharing of costs and confidentiality.
W(th this basic direction set, the next step would fnclude:
• the establishment of a sub-committee to investigate
improvements to Data Collectfon and Analysis, Studles and
Polfcy Formulation planning actfvitlos. The sub-committee would
be composed of planning representat(ves from each local � �
munfcipalfty and the Region, and other stakeholders (ie. School
Boards, Conservation Authorities, etc.). Ffndings would be
reported to the Team.
•... ��. • This sets the direction for the Phase 2 examination of Data Collection and ••.
Analysfs, Studies and Policy Formulation. It is also important to clearly set
. out the recommended next steps and implementation measures for Phase 1•
planning approval process initiatives.
9.0 �lext St ns and Implementatfon
The Team has outlined some initial shifts in service delivery for some of the
planning system services. The next steps in the process is to move from
idea to fmplementation.
"fhis requ(res four action steps:
• presentation of a Report to Regional Planning Committee
recommending that the Planning System Review Phase 1 Report,
be received for tnformation and forwarded to locai municipalities
for endorsement;
• endorsement of the Phase 1 directions by local Councils and
subsequont approval by Regional Council;
J �)
1 S Z AiTACHM[NT p�T0
� t�l ANNINO f1EPORT N G�19
• Page 14
• implementation of Phase 1 directions by the Planning System
Review Team by the end o(1999. This would include any
approvals of Regional or local Councils (eg. memorandum of
agreements, by-laws, etc.); and
• co-ordination by Planning System Review Team of an
examinatfon of service del(very improvements for Data Collection
and Analysis, Studies, and Policy Formulatfon. Th(s would
involve preparation of a Planning System Review Phase 2 Report
with appropriate recommendations to Regfonal and Local
Councils.
10.0 Concluslons
The proposed changes will alter and fmprove the overail planning system,
Resources will have to be adjusted to account for these changed functions,
Detailed costing of the recommended system changes was not investigated,
as the Team felt that the effort required to investigate and analyse the cost
Implicallons of the adJustments recommended was not wananted. Any shift
--- �� in administrative costs were judged by the Team to be minimal,
.:_.. _•. Benefits will come from lhe rationalization.of functions/responsibilities and a..
-- re-designed system that is simpler and less confusing to the development �
industry and the public. This can have positive economic development
implicatfons.
The various stakeholders consulted generally support the directions set out
(n this Report. They are very fnterested fn working with the Team on lhe
details of implementation.
The direction set for the redesigned and improved planning approval
process meets the Goals and Objectives set out in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of
this Report.
There will be a need to continuously monitor the changes implemented tc
determine fu�ther improvements and to maks any adjustments deemed
necessary.
Durham Planning Directors support the recommendatfons of the Planning
Systems Review Phase 1 Report. We appreciate ali of the assistance
received from the various stakeholders in this review. With the adoption of
fi ()
#.� � Kc k: ', J';��:. i F }f �-`�'+.rs +.`� t� .x � y-s `�i.; J �."'�` {.,`_ Y 5 :, . . -
_ ,f ,4 � ��.f ` _ .
��� e �{ 4`. . � -� . .
- ' " < ' AT7ACHMENT N � _,TO
�LANNINO REPOR7 M_( "_ 9J� 8 �
Page IS
' the recommendations set out in thfs Report, the Planning System Revfew
Team wili initiate the necessary action plan to bring ebout implementaqon.
*
;;
£
,
-, -
3
�
4 �
_ ,:. i __ _ . .
,t _
� ' �
` F p
i+ �F �
}. 5C `
t P
- , i+i s,i ,.� �-. z � I � r . .
f �' 4
S
F S S :Fi ' *� `{,. .
�L `y
� 5
:t v -
�
184
AT7ACNMENTp�TO
'1A111lINO REPORT I G -09
DURHAM PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW TEAM
a
. s�
{- .
ATTACHMENTN � TO 185'
• � PLANNINO HEpORT M�
Appendix 1
WORK PLAN FOR DURHAM PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW
1) Agreed to concept o: collaborative initlative Meeting # 1
and deflned parameters ot process,
including use of an outside facilitator. January 29,1998
2) Revlewed and agreed to terma of reference Meeting # 2
and established ground rules.
February 12,1998
Established sub-group to select fac(Iitator.
3) Initlal meeting wlth facllitator. Meeting # 3
Establlahed foundattot� issues ie. role oi April 3,1998
facili�ator, minutes/agendas, ob)ectfves, tfine
1(nes, givens, delfverables, roles, ground
rules, communication channels, schedule of
meetings, etc.
4) Prepared chart of types ot planning services Meeting # 4
and discussed Halton Region Process.
April 16,1998
5) Revised chart of types of planning servfces. Meeting # 5
Agreed on need to map out macro April 23,1998
processes involved in certaln types of
planning services.
6) Revised chart of types of plenning services. AMeeting # 6
Revfewed process for remaining sessions. Aprll 30,1998
Identifled b types oi planning services where
the 2 levels of government are Involved to a
signiflcant extent.
Used subdivistons to work out pracess
mapping and to identify atrengths and
weaknesses and o ortuntties for chan e.
6;i
';;:; .
, 1p ' ATTACHMENTMLTO p
06 PLANNINO REPORT ��.:f,L,
T) Reviewed strength and weakness analysts Meeting # 7
for subdlvislons, condominiums, part-lot
control, local official plan amendments May 7,1998
regional oHicial plan amendments, and
consents by land division.
Considered chart to examine the data
collectlon and analysis service delivery area.
8j Rev(sed chart of types of planning servtces. Meeting # 8
Used part•lot control process to identffy May 20,1996
servtce delivery opNons and Ilst pros and
cons for each option.
9) Identffled service delivery options for Meeting # 9
consents and proslcons for each optlon.
June 4,1998
Introduced "witling host" concept (or
delegation in recagnition of differences in
expertiae and/or ataffing resources
10) Identified service delfvery options for Meeting # 10
plans subdivisfon/condominium and
proslcons for each option. June 12,1998
11) Generated a list of fssues around the Meeting # 11
idea of aubd(visfon delegation, based on
the need to protect Regional interests. June 23,1998
(no quorum)
12) Agreement on principle of exemption of Meeting # 12
local official plan amendments from
RegiAn's approval, subject to guldel(nes June 30,1998
for ldentifying cfrcumstances when the
Region would not grant exemption.
Identifted weaknesses and potential
solutions in the Regional Offlciai Plan
Amendment rocess.
6 �I
�
2
. ATTACHMENT I�T� H �
, PLANNINp REPORT 1 `"
3
13) Reviewed and revised subdivision Meeting # 13
delegation cond(tions.
September 24,1998
Reviewed and rev(sed local official plan
amendment exemption gutdelines.
Discuss�d t(ming of getting Input from
stakeholders.
14) F(nalfzed chart of types of planning Meeting # 14
servfces.
October 22,1998
Revlewed and revtsed subdiviston
delegation conditions.
Revlewed and ravised local official plan
amendment exemptfon guideflne.
15) Consensus on subdfvfslon delegation Meet(ng #15
conditlons.
November 12,1998
Revised local offlcial plan amendment
exemptlon guidellne. (Last seasion with
Tony White as
Determined that revfew of planning facilitator)
services involving data collection and
anaiysis/studi�s/policy formulation
would occur during Phase 2.
Reviewed basic report structure and
determined follow-u actions.
65
• iS0 PU NHNO REPOR T—+'—=L
16) �Arranged meeting w(th: Meeting #16
i) consultants working for Regtonal November, 1998
Goverance Committee; and
ii) with other stakeholders to obtaln
input.
Oiscussed changes to draft report and
determined follow-up �ctions to report
preparation.
17) Overviewed progress on Durham Meeting # 16
Planning System Review to consultants
for Reglonal Goverance Commfttee. December 17,1996
Obtained input from various
stakeholders.
Discussed changes to draft report, wlth
late Jenuary 1999 as anttctpated date tor
completion.
18) Finalizatlon of Report and discusalon of Meeting # 17
implementatfon steps. �
January 15, 1999
nn wo
66
4
�
N
�
¢
w
5
,_,. � .
�
z
2
�
a
LL
�N.
W¢,
F
N
N
9
Cp
6
Q
Q
a�r, ....... , I To �89
+'�. �� -� _., �.=PUf1T U,��
;
U (� U V U U
�
U U U U U
N e � � c �
U U V U U
d
U V U U U
0
C� U U U U U
u
U U U U U U
m C C C � C C
U U U U V C1
< F
2
U U V U U IS
E E E E E
� U �!' �° �° �S �o
�
� �C
s �
� � o
� �� �Cp
� � �
C ~ C
oE � � �� u
E �� ° `g � M
a S w
oci `�g�,�yS e �
�� ��`°'��as � � g� e
q � � S; � � � u r
� �`s��a=�ra`
c �, -
C 0 4 n > t7 v � � � C 4 i
w LL a° .s � C C
� L� e
'�
a � � �
� �
� � � ..
O � C
�OVij
T Q� W N
a�u��
Yj m•«� $
0$'a W
�E.�c
N � 7 d
y E a
�>-m
�'�go
�mmm
.. Hac� .
� d � c
Ol .
O C
�o 0
�E�
F�E�y
E��`°
��
oD
m � 'm m
��x•�
����
aao `°
$EVo
Q!� UX
s�r
�E
m m
c �
E�
� c
s �.
N «
��
E '`
u z
Q �
P'i vEi
. 1�90
N �
� N
�
Z
K
W
_ _.{�j .
y y
�
2
2
. �
a
LL
, 0 .. ..
N
W
�
N
9
�q
Q
�
3
V V � (�S U (� U
�
U V U V U
� � 2 e � c � c
U U U U U U U
a
U V U U U U G
O
U V U U U U U
V
U U U t�$ U U U
m C C C C C C C
U U U U U U U
<
U U U U U U U
E E E E E E E
� � o � m � o � o � o � o � o
e
�
� 3
m
Z' m a
� tl � �� e m
� �
� m
u � .� � � � �� s � a�i � N
Z x 3 �� � �� 2 e
� e � �� � ���� a� �
C � 3 a � G a � �� � i �
c � a � S a° �
� C �� � E 1
'a s
o � �'
n
�
ATTACHMENT tl�TO
PLANt11N0 REPORT N�_
N �
.'S. 7 «
Ot � C
U � � �
� C D �
T � � �
� Q, � C
� m _ �
V � a �
C
N��� m
�Ea
�>-m
tm'l9�o
J N m m
� d $ C
�aCm
d l0 �
O1 .
O C
�C « $
O O
Z, �r �' Z. E
°E� °d
m
'° �� v
� � � � $
€E�y ��
���" ��
a
o � $ ;�'
m '� 'm m H �
$S,'t� c�oa�i
�v�,g �,�
� E
>°'°'m u�
o,dEcco dm
�Evo
u u n o� �
Q!� UX d �
6 ��
�
ro �
a $
�
i
rc
w
�
.__. . W...
�
2
2
.. �
a
LL
O
N
W
�
N
k
C
�
�
�IA�IHNOrREPOR T0� i� ���
; U U U V V U U U
�
U U U U U U U U
y C C C V'�� � C C C C
U U V U UU U U U
n,
U U U U U U U U
0
V U U U V U U U
v
U U U V U f� U U
m C C C C 2 C C G
U U U U U U U U
< E E
� �
U C�S U U U U U U
E E E E E E E E
� �_° �4 � ° � ° �3 �_° �_° �_°
�
E _-
� e s o ���
� H � ��t�
� � a °g SEt�
o $ � � g a � �e°o;, �
u ° •Ep �
u g E p
8 � 8
O C p �� M
�������������
(�" 1 � � � W � = U� 9 3r r
`c � � �
b c
a
r.
0
�
E
m 10
� �..
's � °c
N�'O'
GI � C m
� � � �p
rj � :_ U
°-'E3n�i
N � 7 d
'"Ea
� � d
�'�go
�mmm
"-�$c
�a�m
dW�
Ol .
O �
�C �-
Z� �
, � m
o E 4
��S
�Ec�
E��a
0
�
� � 'm m
�xx �
�
1 � � �
Q�E
a_E�
�E<? o
Q!� UX
r, 7
� .-.
�E
v $
N
E�
� c
8 ;�
C C
mv
E '�
Q �
�' �
1�92
� �
� ry
�
�
�
�
W
V
�
..... .. N _ ...
�
2
Z
5
a
. ._O.._.
N
W
�
N
K
9
Cp
OQ.,
Q
�
ATTACHMENTM�TO
PLANNINO REPORTI 6-�9
; E
U V f� f) V t�T � (� f�S U
�
U U U U U U � U U U
E
��F �F E E E E � E E
� � c � � 5
U U U U U U E U U
6 5
U U U U U U U Cl U ¢
C � �
O D U U U U U �-° U U U
u Fp 4
U U U U U ¢ U a
E
m c � � c � c � E c
U V U U U U ° U U X
'�
E c
< E
U U U U U U ° U U U
E E E E E E E E �
� o
�o�a���a���s ��� �
� �
g o rc
� p �
o � � �S �
0
� � '+ �' sp
9 O y) Q,' L
e° � � � � � E o �,
� � g � o $, : �' _ � � d`
o a � � � x a a "�e,� Z
� ; � o
e i = ' � � a '�� a ,� E � �
m � y� � c° O a
�m
� �� � �� � a
. �, m
f. � N
E
m 10
'S � «
`o � °c
� O w j
N
� � A N
a���
� d _ �
°—' E u a�i
y� 0 'C N
y y E �
m
� _�p m
� � U O
t OD
l� N N N
N.y �.d .
�a�«
d � c
O) .
C C
O �
o �o
m
�E�
C C v
�rE�'�
E o`��
��x�
�
v�"m
°'ao c
�EV4
a���x
rE
mm
�g
E°
��
8 �.
� C
m�
E '�
u x
Qm
�' m
�r n
�5 . . .. � . . ,
l4 � � . .,.. � . ... , . ' - ___ - .. � . .. �
h �
� �
$
�
i
�
W
U
�
._. W
N
�
2
2
�
a
�
. .. 0... _
�
w
�
N
K
'O
Co
6Q.
Q
��
� � � � � � � � � C � �
n o 0 0 o S ci ci o ci o o ci $ o
�
G n` c� ci G$ ci ci ci ci ci ci G u ci
N
a � � � $ � � � � $ � � $ � �
� �F E E�F �F E�F E E E E E E E E
C ` C � C � C � C C `
U U U U U U u u U` U U` U c1 t� U
U
U � � � � � � U � U U � U � �
m
x x x x x E x x E x
� C C 2 C C C C C C C C C C C
o � u:.i o � � u ci u c.% � u u(.%
E E C C CU C C C C UC C C � C C
� � � � � Q � � � � 6 � � � � �
p �
�
a � O Q
b
� � � � �
" � ���c�
� r
a S �
�9 "_�:� gg� �� � ;�e
.� �
���3��a��$������
'a
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�
ATTACHMEt�Tp � Tp 193
PLANNINO REPORT q�
�
E
m 10
� �..
o�
`Lo c
U � N �
C N
aCllO N
� � m Co
� m _ u
�$ O'C
E •� m
�'� N
N„ � d
NEn.
�>—�pm
C" U O
m«o--
� N � �
y d � c
�°� c =
d � c
C Ol •��
- C
O '-
O O � ^
Z, �r �i � E
�E�o m
�$
c
� N C N � �
E��a $c
o,_ �
m� d � �'�
��x,��. m�
v `".. m E �
'oEEc Q d
o,d E m
$E� `q �
a �� ii X 8' �
71
194
t0 �
� N
�
i
rc
W
V
�
W
N
i�
2
2
�
a
LL
O__.
W
�
N
x
'v
e
�q,
Q
�
AT7ACHMENipLTO
�LANNINO REPORT M,�
; ti t� �E � � � � °
� t� t! 4
U U U a a Q a ¢ a
N V v �E �E �E �o �o �o
E
a d U U �� d � � � �
E E E
O D U � � � � � E o
U � U U 6 � Q Q 6 °
m E E �
�E V �o �o E o
a Cl U U �E �E �s �o g m•
d
� �� � m � E � E U U U
�
E m
2 � � � `m
� ° �
�
� � � � m
°u °' � a � E
z a q $ � � �
Q e � � � a �
m r �i' u5
� '
g � .� .� �
a 8 3�� � $ ? � r°•t r9 m
a �
u
0 p
� t'J �J � ri r�i oi r�i N.i + +
h- M •
� 7 ...
o � °c
� O ul j
C �
o �°
�, Ol N N
� � � C
�y_$
v$o,�
c
y�•� N
��Ea
>—�p�'
� � U� O
U d N N
y � $ C .
�a�d
d�pc
rn _
o �
0 0 � ,,,
�,�5' �E
°E� �«°�m
'�°--� � $
�E � � E u
E��� $�
0
�
m�•mm y��
� � m
��x � E D I
> � m � V � �
nao � a � '
U �
Q EUX �'i �
�
��
.
... .,. . . . . . .. . .� '%.�., . . . . . . . ..
W
s
W
N
�
2
z
�
a
LL
O
F
N
K
Co
6q,
Q
� � ; �
� �
�
E �
rc �
y E o
� � c
U
c
a � o
U
O
�o c
U
t► I
�
m �
�
t
Q
m
_ a
� m
�
U U
� I� I� I�
U U Q U
E U E UE
� ° 6 ° U Q °
m
U E
� U Q E Q U Q
� � � � U
� d X d u
�U2 � E U�2
U° Q.4 � E U 6°
� ° � � � c U � °
E E E 'E
�m �o �E �o ,.
�
E
m
G
E
�E
E
�
�o
�
�m
C •
� m
E
U
� � e
o � 9t
`m �
b � � �
Z $ � �` a 8 �
� �
o •� � E � � o
`� �s � � � �' � �
c � ° � g C � � � m
�d ci �; in c� a" 9 0 o in
'a � .- o
w �
°: ��� � � � � a A
� � e
ATTACHMENT p � 70
PLANNINO REPORT N d -y9
I95
m
� �..
OL � C
U � � �
c'
���m
5�°'$
W :
V ''S' a r0
C
VI '� 7 m
�Ea
� > _ d
���ga
�dmv
. a d � c
�a�m
� � c
C �
'C C
O «
y � �
O O '� ^
��� �E
m � m m
c
, �� c y E �
E �a �o c
O U�
'� � V y'
d
�x� ��
v�"g E�
mccqH Em
o E E � u•.
�'E ° � Q a�
U �
¢���x m�
73
196
m �
� �
�
a
W
V
�
N
�
z
2
�
a
LL
O
W
�
N
Cp
6
�
; �
�
�� m s � o � �s �s � m
�
� � U U U U � U
E �
y � c �
E U U U �
� o � m
� a �
6 � U d �U � U � �
� E
` �o�o `�o `�o �o `�o �o �m
U
u
� U � � U U Y �
m c3 U U �E �E �E
'� � � � � � �
� �� � o o� o � o � o � o � o
� � � U U 6 Q � 6
�
E $
�
e� •$ o
a �c
e �.�
E �
°u 3� S `m �
�t •y a 8 � e � � �
� o � � � � E �
� '� C
�d � � 3 u�i �, � � 8 = �
a 9
0
e�n � � � � � � �
� �
. t. , . _ _
ATTACHMENTq�TO
PLAN111N0 REPORT M L-f 9
ro
� �..
o � °c
� O N j
��� �
a�m$
� ma
o$�m
y a C
E 'u d
a-. � •� �
�'" E a
� >— d
� ��p 8 0
U N N �
yd$c
�av d
� � c
OI .
C C
O '�
C «�
O O
�Ec
C � �
�E c �
E���
o ._
�� ��
V�x�
; � � N
am E c�
�EV o
¢!� �x
; 7 �1
� .-.
o m
ia �'O
E�
� C
��
�«
E�
�z
am
��
O1 4
� �
a N
$
�
E
z
W
U
w
N
�
Z
2
�
a
LL
O
�
�
N
'�O
Co
}O�
V
ATTACHMENT p..,L,TO � � `
PLANf�INO REPORT qJ=-�Q�
E E
#�������� ����
�
U � � U �
� C CU
� � U U U U� � E 6
� ` � � $E
a � � � � � d d d d
o �� � o �� �s t� � P d d d 3�
U
� � � � U U � � � � �
m �E �E �E v � � �
� 'E 'E 'E E
` �s���a������ � ����
� E
� E �° U U Q Q � 6 �
� �
o �� � � �
� s � � g
� � � g � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � g � �
�� W � �
�C� � � � �� p� °§�idE
E 4 0
�0 m K 4. 1-�� �ii U C O m� °
o. g
On o� ° � �" �r Na�n
h t� 1� h h h � 10 O O � O
H e
E
m 10
� �..
o�°c
�, O N j
m O � C
� �y C
� � �
� m =
'O � Q �0
c
N � •� m
mEn.
� > - �
�'�80
�dm�
�d$c
�a�v
` � C
O1 .
C C
O +%
O O � ^
�,� d rE
DE� �H
��a'�' �o�
E � '- �
`o D $;�
�� m � c�c
��x � E �
� �
>d°E�� u�
QaE� � Q m
�'E�q �
Q�!CSX �ia
w-
� r�
198
o �
� ry
a �
E
rc
W
V
W
N
(9
2
2
�
a
LL
O._ ...
N
�
N
Cp
Oq.
Q
�
ATTACHMENT q�7p
PLANNIN6 REPORT p��
� � � �t� � �U �
t�S �� � U U � 6� Q U V
�
� � � � ci � �
E E
� c � U
� � �E �E �E u
a SE Ua
c E o �
U� U U Q Q� ¢ a U
O {� C C C C C CU GU C
Q � � �� � Q Q � t�S U
� � X � U U � Y � � � _°
E
m
�E �E U U � �
C C C C CU C
a �� � U U � � Q � U d
K aF Fp E
U U Q Q U E ¢ ¢ U U Q
� g
W �.
a Q e m
� � � ° -
E g � �
� � � L � � � U m
e E V � `o � � �
� c g'? � E�� a m a'�,
c � �@ E � � � $ � 4 � �$ U
� n. �i ti � w ci � m ��i g N�
a � m
o � .- • m
�� � ��� o 0 0 0 o d
F- m °
u
�f..
`o ° °c
.�o��
e' �
T�OD fCp y�j
5�01$
m =
��'am
y C
0 3 a
H� � �
mEn
� >—�p d
�" u O
t� « OD
u N� N W
a�ra�
�a�d
� � c
Ol .
C O!
'C C
O «
= N
C «�
O O�
N
�E�
�Ec°N
E o � �
m�'md
7
�vx�
..
oEE`0
$,dEc�o
�.EV c
Q!� UX
.�-
� .-.
O �
io $v
E�
a�
8 ,�
N «
m V
E 'N
u z
��
(6
it� �. - . � - �
R�-' . I`. :iY - . . . ... . 1 . .
ATTACHMENTp � TO ���
PLANNINO REPORTq L-99
Page 3•1
Appendix 3
SEt2VICE DELIVERY OPTIONS AND PRO/CON ANALYSIS
1. REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
WEAKNESS
• Public meeting overlap between local
official plan amendmenls and
Regional Offic�al Plan Amendmenls
• Duplication oi fortns
• Overlap fn circulation with other
applfcat(ons
• Lack oi cladly suROUnding leadership
and sign-off oi lechnlcal studies eg:
Environmenlal Impact Sludies
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
• joint public meeling/notice/mfnutes
held in local municipality
• strive lo coordinale/consolfdate all
stalutory puEiic meetings
• Joint RegionaUlocal torm
• cansolida�e circulation
• clarify roles and responsibilities
The Team ag�eed that since delegation was not an option that the
focus ahould be on pinpointing current weaknesses in the system
and then devising solutions.
' ` ii`
;<<
_ :
�� _
., .
, ,:.
� �� �
i 1 j t �
f t 3
v.s2 ijt �
.a:d{. h ... .r.. ..a _, ) . . .. , >, . �)" � . _
P AMNHNO REPO�TOd ��
200 .
2. Subdivtsion/Condominium
OPTION #1 - STATUS QUO
PROS
• familiadty wilh process
• one process tor all
• allows for 3rd party mediaUon on
issues/conditions
• public meeting at local municfpality
expedites the pracess
• implements reg(onal & local polfcy
• any liability resls with approval
authority
• provfdes for regional control - capital
budget
• applicat(ons are dealt with by regional
staH
Page 3-2
CONS
• duplicetion of application (e.g. - fees,
forms, staff review)
� technical study, review requ(rements
are onerous
• provincial interest mapping not
immedietely available to local
municfpality
• lack of ane•window
• lack of lacal knowledge
• 2leads
2.2 OPTION �!2
DELEGATE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION/CONDOMINIUM PROCESS TO
LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
PROS
� improved Customer ServicelOne
Window
• faster process (potential for)
• simpte
• Increased accountability at the local
level
• ma!/ eliminate overlaps
• In•Fiouse technical expertise 8 control
• local knowledge
CONS
• Municipalities may have to have
additional staft
� no opportunity for 3rd party medialion
• increased risk that Regional interests
would not be implemented
• increased administration casts to the
Regfon
• I1a611ity ot local municipality to opt out
ofprocess
� reduction fn economies ot scale
� tess consistency
�8
rs
�
i_ �.g.. . . , is ., r . ... . .. . . . � � � . . . � . . .
ATTACNMEN7q�T0 �0�,
PLANNINO REPORT p_�,Q„�
� Page 3-3
2.3 OPTION #3
PARTIAL DELEGATION OF SUBDIVISIONICONDOMINIUM TO LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES
(i.e. by part of macro process)
PROS
• reduces duplication
• keeps strengths oi existing system
while eddresses the weaknesses
• allows a more'seamless' process al
local municipality
• addresses some of the CONS in
OPTIONS # 1 & 2
CONS
• confusion to applicant
• intemaily complicated (lwo leads)
• doesn't alleviate perception of
duplication
• 'not quite a one-w(ndow approach"
2.4 OPTION #4
PARTIAL DEL�GATION OF SUBDIVISION/CONDOMINIUM TO
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
(i.e, by type o( application eg: urban/rural, atandardlcomplex, condo)
PROS CONS `
• removea Region irom process when • con(us(on to applicants, pubflc 8 staff
no regional interests are apparent • econamics oi scale fssues
• certain appHcations may be expedited • lwawindows
(leg. Smatl in-fill) • interpretation of slandard complex
• singte lead
• certain condo applicat(ons expedited
2.5 OPTION #5
DELEGATION OF SUBDIVISION/CONDOMINIUM TO WILLING HOST
PROS CONS
• keeps everyone happy • fear of potential for forced delegation
Pros and Cons as per Oplions # 2& 3
7�
,• t .
r y
.
.. 2.,.,�� _ l.; r. , , <'1 . . . . _. , . . . .. . . - � .. , . . .. . � .. _ �
20,2 r� ATTACHMENTq � Tp
PLANNIN� REPORT kf�Q�
Page 3-4
� It was agreed by the area municipalities that Option #5 "Delegation
of subdivision/condomin(um by Municipality to Willing Host" is the
preferable option. The Region felt that (t could agree with this
opt(on as long as a number of conditlons were met and accepted
by the entire group. These conditions will be discussed at the next
meeting.
3. PART-LOT CONTROL
3.1 OPTION #1
MAINTAINS STATUS GUO
PROS
• Fast/efficient & echieves Region's
objectivea
• Prov(des Impartial revlew
• Ensures compiiance with Act
• Ensures compllance with Reg(onal
policy
• Cons(stency across Regfon
• Keeping with lhe "spirit' of original
approved application
CONS
• Duplication of checking the by-law
• Coniusion for appflcanUcustomer
• Local impacl issue (predominantiy)
3.2 OPTION #2
DELEGATE ENTIRE PART-�OT CONTROL PROCESS TO LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES
(Under certain cond(dons)
PROS CONS
• Slreamline • Potentfal for abuse
• Less administratlon • Regionai interests may not be
• Essentfally local adm(nistration considered
• CondiNons provide opportuniNes to
respect Reglonal interests
8n .
.�:
_
� �t:;;.��,.,., r .,, ,, � .._., . .,,: , ,. ..�;. . .. � , . . , .
��_ � „ti
ATTACHMEN7N ' 203
PLANNIIya REPpq r0[ �y
—'�L
. Page 3-5
3.3 OPTION #3
TRANSFER ENTIRE PROCESS TO REGION
PROS CONS
• Consistency across the region • Would require amendment to Act
• Creates one point-of-wntact • Creates inefficiencies for both local
municipalities 8 Reglon
• Inefficient for customer
3,4 OPTION #4
REGION PARTIALLY DELEGATES PART-LOT CONTROL TO LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY
(By.type of appllcadon eg: frontage on a Reglonal Road)
PROS CONS
• Streamlining tor majority of applicants • Two pofnts of contact for non-
• Compifance with Planning Act deiegated applicants
• Regionel Interests would be � Creates a 2-stage process for
addressed except(on
• , •otenGal confus(on for customers and
staH
It was agreed by the Team that Option #2 "Delegate Entire Process
to local municipalfties under certain conditions" would be
recommended. The conditions for delegation will need to be
defined.
$.1
,�
,
r
4 i
y �4 { }.�
� ry 1
;; � t _'� �, r � � �, � , � -. ' �.. • Y � .
�
ikLt��n�'!ty.t.%71>>.i� ke_: �{ A, �� . .._ '_J r, .�� .i . . . . . , , .., . . , _
, 2Q4 ATTACHMENTI�L_TO
• PLANNINO iiEPORT �_(r_Q�
�
Page 3-8
4. CONSENT
4.1 OPTION #1 - STATUS QUO
PROS
• maintains impa�tiality (representation)
• ensure regional objectives are met
• ensure local objectives are met
• cnnsistency across the Reg(on
• availabilily of applications
• infrastNCture knowiedge
• access to In-house legal
• convenience to appl(cants, agents &
agencies
• regular schedule o( meeUngs
• breadth of knowledge of Land Division
Committee staH
• lo�al - no need to hire eMra staH
(North)
• low cost aervice
CONS
• distance to make applicadon
(inconvenience)
• time' workload for simple application
• duplication of fees
• lack of coordination with Certificate oi
Approval and other processes
• cost ta !he consumer
• lack oi local knowledge
• (UrbaNRurai) appeals carried by lacal
municipalitfes
4.2 OPTION #2
DELEGATE ENTIRE CONSENT PROCESS TO LOCAL AREA
MUNICIPALITIES
PROS
• one-window approach to related
app�ications
• opportunities to streamlfne
• enhanced customer service re: local
o�ce
• local knowledge
• potential to reduce fees (urban)
CONS
• local mun(cipalities will require more
slaKng (Rural)
• loss ot impartlality
• lack of consistency across Region
• more regianal staff timelwork
• questionable regard for regional
comments
• less opportuniry for speclalized staff
• (nconvenience to customers making
multlple appl(cations
,
• dupNcation of fees
8?.
� �
F. �
��i� � ,, ,
f�; rh...�X.�.,tixz�s.., �'. .;.: _ , .
ATTACHMENT/�,(�Tp �Og�
PIANNINO REPORT 1��,
Pege 3-7
4.3 QPTION #3
PARTIAL DELEGATION TO LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
(ey type of applicaUon eg: leases, eanements, fartn-related, urban areahural area)
PROS CONS
•(mplementation of regianal policy • confusion to customer
• opportunity to expedite simple • adm(nistrative duplicationa
applications • diKcult to "cleariy' split
• economies of scale loss
4,4 OPTION #4
DELEGATE BY MUNICIPALITIES
PROS CONS
• keeps everyone happy • fear of potential for forced delegalion
Pros & Cans as per t12 
It was agreed by the Team that Optlon #1 "Maintain Status Quo"
would be recommended the cons of the current system would be
invest(gated to provide greater efficiency.
83
;
> ; �� � �
;� ;
,_ t , s � -
_ ,� ,
tV'� a r �' ; , , �
fie�`,�#�'.`�. �...._s.�... .�.,...ec*.a, x.,... s . _.. .. , ` .. , . , _.. , . .� ..
� �
��
�
�
W
5
�
W
N
�
z
2
�
LL
O
W
�
N
k
'v
c
�q
a
206
ATTACHhIENT N�TO��y�
PUkNINO REPORT � n r�
;�� � � � �����
� � � Y d d � d � � � d �
c c e e � E
� � � � � �m �E � m �E `�
a � � � � u � d � � u
C C
� � E Ua E E
� U � U U Q U ¢ � �
u
� o 0 0 0 3 m o o a o �j
m � E m E E E � E
�° � � � � � � �m �
C �
a �c �c � U` � �E �E o �m m _
� � � � � � `� � d
�
.$
b �
$ m
� �
� � �
° € o �
E a b° � � b
u° � � � � � e � $ E m
Z $ m � c V � o $ �
N� S� n v�, �� 8 m �'
°8 ° �' " ,'� u°. ^{ '�
C o c � m � E {° oi `m �
b� � i� � a � o ti O= I6 vi �
�^ n� o.- � � � � m ��
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0
�
?;{ �. ., . . ... ,. ..
�
$��
O
rS'S��
��� �
� � � $
m =
��a�
c
li- � C �1
y Y"' 7 N
� E a
� >-�p �
�� U O
a
� m N N
N ry ��„ C
�ac d
v � c
rn
C C
O '�
C '-
O O
� E �
�r E � a
E��16
a
O D
$�m'L
�x=
o�
v":"�
>�m"
oEEc
avE�o
�E�?o
Q��<..ix
S..
o �
�o
c �
� c
s ;�
c
� �
u�
Q ?�
E�N
�1
_ .. . . . .. _.. ; . __... . . .. _
�� .
� pTTACHMENTN � TO
. PLANNINO REPORT ��
N S
� g
� �
a �
�
rc
W
U
W
N
(9
z
z
�
a
LL
ON
W
�
N
X
'o
c
0
a
�'
; E
� c� �
�
� �
2 �
� � �
a � � �
O 5E
d U `�
u
u � �
m � �
t
� d � �
�
�
a�
u �
�
�
� �s���
a a � �
� W � �
�
�
�
�
�
f
m
ra � «
`o � °c
.� O N j
T � � H
��°'8
m=
�$n�
mE'am
�L'c�
N(0 y E a
3 > — �
�"�io
W � p r
{3mN�i
y m $ c
�n.��
d � c
°' -
c c
o �.
0 0
I °E� �E
��b v `�
c 8
�y� mr.
E�c� �a,
� c
���� � � �
� � E�
>mv� E�
aq.m�E� `�a�
¢EUC -
Q !� t� X �i �
°000 gr�
,
� .
._..�... ... . ..,,_.. ,, . ,