Automation Gallery
Superstar
Oh OK, that says it all, concentrating on various things and getting very little done
- Thread starter AHK
- Start date
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
It gets worse than that. If you go over who is in charge of which transit project, you will see many repeat names and overlap. It is the same people working on multiple projects simultaneously, in addition to other tasks involved in city planning.
We have individuals who are responsible for overseeing not one, but two, three transit projects at a time. Now consider how each transit project needs to be addressed not just from a transit framework (complicated enough as it is), but from the comprehensive context of community building, urban renewal, the Greenbelt and Places to Grow legislation, AODA, and overall city planning principles.
Then they are also working on all the developer applications submitted to the city, and dealing with the OMB, again from this comprehensive planning framework. As well as reporting back to council whenever they vote on something stupid like studying licensing cyclists. Miracle that despite all this, they still have the time to host community consultations and other public outreach to maintain municipal transparancy.
But of course, John Tory is promoting budget cuts to City Planning department.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
The City Planning Department has been overworked and understaffed for years under Tory, Ford, Miller and probably Lastman as well. Adam Vaughan used to complain about this when he was a CityTv reporter.
The same staff are not working on both transit lines and building applications: the two are handled in separate divisions of City Planning.
That's not to say that the department has enough staff to handle the applications: they do not. Understaffing is now endemic to Planning, as more applications pour in every year, but staffing levels are not changing appreciably.
Every application is reviewed by different people in several divisions, to check that transportation won't be too adversely impacted, to check on power, water, and sewage connection plans, emergency services gets a look, the proposal is checked against all the local planning regulations and guidelines, while other local planning precedents are considered.Heritage gets involved when heritage structures onsite or adjacent may be affected. The planner has a lot of work to do to bring all of the feedback together, to arrange meetings when there are issues, to put together public consultations.
One question that remains is whether or not an extension to the 120 day deadline would be needed if the department was adequately staffed. My take is that for more complex projects 120 days would still not be enough. I don't know if size is what might trigger amendments to the law (why should a simple Avenues style building be held up by Planning), but I am hoping that's what it is. How to gauge how the size should be accommodated for, I don't know. It will be interesting to see what's coming though.
In regards to whether or not Planning picks developments to let go beyond the 120 days, they will never admit that they do. My contention, however, is that they must in certain cases. They know they cannot get it all done—that's just a fact of life in the department—so they must prioritize certain projects where they feel that their time is best spent. If something crazy comes in where they have no fear about it being passed by the OMB, they can let that slide. If something comes in that requires amendments, but where they don't fear the precedents that might be set at an OMB hearing, they can let that slide. If they are worried about how a proposal may go at an OMB hearing, however, then the have to stay on top of the file.
Not every developer appeals to the OMB as soon as the 120 days have passed. If they feel the process is going well, even if it's going a bit late, then it's better for them to stick it out with the City: the OMB hearing can be a whole year away, and those 365 days may be better spent talking with the City still.
Finally, even proposals that go the OMB can still be subject to negotiation. The City and many developers would rather continue to work towards a settlement so that when they get to the OMB it can simply be ratified. Less time (and money) is spent in such cases, and the 2 sides are generally happier with the lack of uncertainty that the future OMB decision represents. Might as well bring the parties together for an agreement, get it done, and get working on the next project where many of the same players will have to face each other again.
42
That's not to say that the department has enough staff to handle the applications: they do not. Understaffing is now endemic to Planning, as more applications pour in every year, but staffing levels are not changing appreciably.
Every application is reviewed by different people in several divisions, to check that transportation won't be too adversely impacted, to check on power, water, and sewage connection plans, emergency services gets a look, the proposal is checked against all the local planning regulations and guidelines, while other local planning precedents are considered.Heritage gets involved when heritage structures onsite or adjacent may be affected. The planner has a lot of work to do to bring all of the feedback together, to arrange meetings when there are issues, to put together public consultations.
One question that remains is whether or not an extension to the 120 day deadline would be needed if the department was adequately staffed. My take is that for more complex projects 120 days would still not be enough. I don't know if size is what might trigger amendments to the law (why should a simple Avenues style building be held up by Planning), but I am hoping that's what it is. How to gauge how the size should be accommodated for, I don't know. It will be interesting to see what's coming though.
In regards to whether or not Planning picks developments to let go beyond the 120 days, they will never admit that they do. My contention, however, is that they must in certain cases. They know they cannot get it all done—that's just a fact of life in the department—so they must prioritize certain projects where they feel that their time is best spent. If something crazy comes in where they have no fear about it being passed by the OMB, they can let that slide. If something comes in that requires amendments, but where they don't fear the precedents that might be set at an OMB hearing, they can let that slide. If they are worried about how a proposal may go at an OMB hearing, however, then the have to stay on top of the file.
Not every developer appeals to the OMB as soon as the 120 days have passed. If they feel the process is going well, even if it's going a bit late, then it's better for them to stick it out with the City: the OMB hearing can be a whole year away, and those 365 days may be better spent talking with the City still.
Finally, even proposals that go the OMB can still be subject to negotiation. The City and many developers would rather continue to work towards a settlement so that when they get to the OMB it can simply be ratified. Less time (and money) is spent in such cases, and the 2 sides are generally happier with the lack of uncertainty that the future OMB decision represents. Might as well bring the parties together for an agreement, get it done, and get working on the next project where many of the same players will have to face each other again.
42
greenleaf
Senior Member
Among a number of things, the city is asking the province to increase time frame to evaluate & coordinate proposals (at bottom of list): http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.PG16.6
Thanks for that link @greenleaf! Quite a number of interesting changes proposed. The section pertinent to this discussion reads:
28. City Council recommend that the Minister of Municipal Affairs extend application processing timeframes in the Planning Act before “failure to proceed” appeals can be made for applications, in order to provide for more opportunities for mediation and reduce the potential number of "failure to proceed" based appeals, as follows:
a. Official Plan Amendments be increased from 180 days to 240 days;
b. Zoning By-law Amendments be increased from 120 days to 180 days; and
c. Zoning By-law Amendments that run concurrently with an Official Plan Amendment be increased from 180 days to 240 days.
I do not support a carte blanche extension of the timelines. Property owners should not have to wait half a year for smaller proposals to be approved. It should depend upon the complexity of the proposal to some degree, and the Official Plan Amendment extension request would take care of some but not all of those. (OPAs are not required for all complex proposals.)
The problem is—really—that the City is not properly funding the planning department. It is the City's responsibility to process submissions in a timely matter. At a time when we have an historic crunch on new housing supply, is it ethical to increase the length of the approvals process for more housing? The City needs to shoulder their responsibilities instead of pushing them off further into the future.
42
28. City Council recommend that the Minister of Municipal Affairs extend application processing timeframes in the Planning Act before “failure to proceed” appeals can be made for applications, in order to provide for more opportunities for mediation and reduce the potential number of "failure to proceed" based appeals, as follows:
a. Official Plan Amendments be increased from 180 days to 240 days;
b. Zoning By-law Amendments be increased from 120 days to 180 days; and
c. Zoning By-law Amendments that run concurrently with an Official Plan Amendment be increased from 180 days to 240 days.
I do not support a carte blanche extension of the timelines. Property owners should not have to wait half a year for smaller proposals to be approved. It should depend upon the complexity of the proposal to some degree, and the Official Plan Amendment extension request would take care of some but not all of those. (OPAs are not required for all complex proposals.)
The problem is—really—that the City is not properly funding the planning department. It is the City's responsibility to process submissions in a timely matter. At a time when we have an historic crunch on new housing supply, is it ethical to increase the length of the approvals process for more housing? The City needs to shoulder their responsibilities instead of pushing them off further into the future.
42
maestro
Senior Member
Yeah, People are handed more and more responsibilities everywhere usually as cost saving measures.
I'm not fond of these extension either. It's just feels planning has been using the "failure to proceed" to their advantage by disregarding proposals that go above and beyond acceptable to them.
I'm not fond of these extension either. It's just feels planning has been using the "failure to proceed" to their advantage by disregarding proposals that go above and beyond acceptable to them.
Mongo
Senior Member
Simply adding more time does not help, other than in the short term. It still takes the same number of hours to process an application, it does not really matter whether those hours are supposed to be used in 90 days, 180 days or 270 days. There is still a torrent of new proposals coming in each month. All that adding the extensions to the allowable time really does, is delay the time before the decision is overdue by an extra 90 days (which adds to the expenses of each project).
The only true solution would be to increase the size of the Planning staff, by enough to handle the current rate of new applications.
Civdis
Active Member
Not to mention the fact that developers pay huge application fees to the city that should more than cover staff costs.
TransitBart
Senior Member
DSCToronto
Superstar
This is coming up at the meetings about the review of the OMB. See: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page15027.aspx In its submission the City said:
28. City Council recommend that the Minister of Municipal Affairs extend application processing timeframes in the Planning Act before “failure to proceed” appeals can be made for applications, in order to provide for more opportunities for mediation and reduce the potential number of "failure to proceed" based appeals, as follows:
a. Official Plan Amendments be increased from 180 days to 240 days;
b. Zoning By-law Amendments be increased from 120 days to 180 days; and
c. Zoning By-law Amendments that run concurrently with an Official Plan Amendment be increased from 180 days to 240 days.
See: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.PG16.6
That presumes the money goes to the planning department and not to general funds.
greenleaf
Senior Member
They will be now! City council just passed new application fees that work on a cost recovery model.
Approved in December 2016 City Council meeting: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.PG15.1
from: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-97234.pdf
"The average annual processing costs for development review are approximately $50 million. Compared with revenues of $36 million, the current Planning application fees are recovering approximately 72% of the City's total costs or under -recovering $14
million annually.Subject to Council approval, Planning application fees will increase by 34% on aggregate and are anticipated to generate $12 million in additional revenue, with total Planning application fee revenue estimated at $48 million (2016$).
Anticipated revenues are $2 million less than anticipated costs as the surcharge for Section 37 includes Legal Services costs only and excludes all other City processing costs ($2 million)."
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
Why does it cost $50 million to read over plans? I clearly lack an understanding of this process but that sounds like a lot of money
AHK
Senior Member
Did you not read I42's post #139 in this thread? To quote Craig's post: 'Every application is reviewed by different people in several divisions, to check that transportation won't be too adversely impacted, to check on power, water, and sewage connection plans, emergency services gets a look, the proposal is checked against all the local planning regulations and guidelines, while other local planning precedents are considered.Heritage gets involved when heritage structures onsite or adjacent may be affected. The planner has a lot of work to do to bring all of the feedback together, to arrange meetings when there are issues, to put together public consultations.'
Given the scope and complexities of the issues to be addressed during the application review process times the number of applications received each year - it is a bit more complex than spending '$50 million to read over plans'.
A further comment - these procedures would not be a simple, single pass, but in the case of larger or more complex applications, involve multiple iterations of query, response, request for additional information / changes between the planning department and the developer.
Yes - it does sound like you may 'clearly lack an understanding of the process'.
Last edited: