HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil - 2012-10-22 SSPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER
A special meeting of City Council was held at 2:04 p.m. this date, chaired by Mayor C. Zehr with all
members present. Councillors Y. Fernandes and J. Gazzola were in attendance for part of the
meeting.
Notice of this meeting had been previously given to all members of Council by the City Clerk pursuant
to Chapter 25 (Council Procedure) of the Municipal Code.
It was noted that this was a strategic session being held to receive presentations on proposed
development of a Government Relations Strategy and on the City's Demolition Control Policy.
Council considered Chief Administrator's Office report CAO-12-045 (D. McCabe), dated October 22,
2012, which provides information regarding the development of a Government Relations Strategy.
Mr. J. Willmer, CAO, introduced the item advising that the restructuring of 2010 provided for the
position of Chief of Staff which also encompasses the government relations function. He indicated
that representation of municipal interests currently takes place through the broader associations of
the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM).
Accordingly, the City of Kitchener needs to raise awareness of issues unique and specific to the City
and to ensure they remain at the forefront through a committed government relations strategy. He
added that several other municipalities, which are detailed in the report, have placed government
relations in the forefront by hiring a fulltime position.
Ms. D. McCabe gave a presentation entitled 'Government Relations Framework' which defined
government relations; detailed the objective of government relations; and, outlined why the City would
need a strategy. Ms. McCabe reinforced the importance for the City of Kitchener to be at the table
with Provincial Ministers and MPPs while legislation is being made in order for the City's perspective
to be communicated. She outlined the process for developing a strategy beginning with identifying
key and prevailing priorities which will be determined through a consultation and research process.
She added that the government relations strategy would provide a coordinated approach to working
with other orders of government and stakeholders; it would include a process of identifying
stakeholders on an issue-by-issue basis and leveraging those relationships and contacts. She noted
that next steps include approval of the key priorities with required research and identifying the
stakeholders which would be followed by creating a strategy for implementation relative to the City's
position on the issue. Accordingly, a review and update to Council would take place annually or on
an as-needed basis depending on the priority or issue.
In response to questions, Ms. McCabe advised that the priorities contained within the staff report
were developed by the Corporate Management Team (CMT) and are in draft format for future
discussion purposes. She indicated that when research of a particular issue would benefit from the
expertise of staff, a coordinated effort to determine the City's position is the objective.
With regard to the City's previous practice, Mayor C. Zehr indicated that his office had written letters
to the Minister on an ad hoc basis; the objective of the government relations strategy would be to
provide research to develop a municipal position and make an overture at the provincial level. Mr.
Willmer added this is a structured and formalized approach to developing open communication with
other orders of government rather than the ad hoc, issue-based approach of the past.
Mr. Willmer alluded to the City competing with other municipalities for infrastructure funding and
pointed out that a coordinated effort with the Region of Waterloo, City of Kitchener, and the Chamber
of Commerce would present a stronger message to the Province to ensure City concerns are a
priority. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that the City will not be a pioneer in this arena; other
municipalities have hired private lobbying firms to lobby on their behalf. He suggested that a
coordinated approach to form partnerships would ensure that the City of Kitchener stays informed on
upcoming grant programs and initiatives that would be of benefit.
Mayor Zehr commented that this report was provided for information and a further report will be
brought forward to the Committee of the Whole sometime in the future.
Mr. J. Willmer, Chief Administrator, introduced Community Services Department report CSD-12-146
(Information & Discussion - Kitchener Demolition Control Policy), dated October 18, 2012,
commenting that concerns have risen in regard to the City's process for demolition control stemming
from general confusion by the public as to why they are notified when they have little ability to effect
change. He stated that review of the City's Demolition Control (DC) policies has not been a priority.
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2012 - 248- CITY OF KITCHENER
until now and he viewed the presentation this date as timely given recent discussions Council has
had at Standing Committee and Council meetings.
Ms. D. Ross, Manager, Development Review, advised that a report on updates to the DC policies is
anticipated to come forward in early 2013 and staff is considering revisions to ensure the policy
remains as efficient and effective as possible, with the intent to consolidate the 4 existing policies into
one. She advised that the presentation this date comprises 2 parts, with the first intended to be an
educational component followed by questions and answers; and the second, to obtain input from
Council on specific questions posed by staff prior to completing and submitting a report for formal
consideration of Council.
Mr. Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, advised that Demolition Control is an optional planning tool under
Section 33 of the Planning Act, applying only to residential uses to primarily provide some level of
control over the premature demolition of existing housing stock. Kitchener has designated a
Demolition Control area that is City-wide while other municipalities such as the City of Waterloo have
designated smaller areas, and still others have chosen not to use demolition control. No provision is
made for involvement of the community and only an applicant can appeal Council's decision to the
Ontario Municipal Board. In instances where redevelopment is proposed, Council must approve an
application for demolition and may only impose a standard condition of approval to require timely
redevelopment. Where no redevelopment is proposed, Council can approve an application but no
conditions can be imposed; or, they can refuse the application. It was .noted that 4 policies currently
guide the DC process which provides for applications to be circulated to applicable departments /
agencies for comment; and where no redevelopment is proposed, to all property owners within 60m
of the subject property. A notice is also circulated to advise property owners within 60m of a subject
property as to the Committee meeting at which an application is to be considered and is intended only
as a courtesy to inform them of a pending demolition and of short-term inconvenience that may result.
A demolition permit is then issued by the Building Division on approval of an application and / or on
issuance of a building permit for redevelopment.
Mr. Pinnell responded to questions, advising that Kitchener's demolition control policy is more
restrictive than the City of Waterloo, in that it is applied City-wide whereas Waterloo limits their
demolition control area to a small portion of their core area. He further advised that residents
concerned with potential damage to their properties resulting from demolition would be addressed
through the demolition permit process rather than through Demolition Control. Mr. R. Schipper,
Manager of Building, added that on complaint, staff would investigate instances of alleged damage
and if in agreement, would take steps to address the issue. He further clarified that staff undertake to
do so as a courtesy, attempting to assist though it is a civil matter between the two property owners.
Councillor Y. Fernandes entered the meeting at this time.
Mr. J. Witmer, Interim Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services, advised that applicants are apprised of
the need to obtain apre-condition survey of adjacent properties that can be used as evidence that the
demolition has not made the condition of an adjacent building any worse than at time of the survey.
He added that this also ensures the City is not inheriting liability of any damages caused by another
party.
Councillor Z. Janecki requested clarification of concerns he had received from a resident at the time
Council considered a rezoning and demolition application on Birch Avenue, which they had raised
due to another redevelopment of semi-detached dwellings behind them that they alleged resulted in
damage to their property and the City took no action to resolve the matter. Mr. J. Witmer explained
that apre-condition survey was conducted on the adjacent property and the current owner had
subsequently purchased the property not knowing apre-condition survey had been done. The City
went back to the contractor to determine if the cause of the damage had resulted from the
redevelopment and found that evidence provided by the pre-condition survey showed that it was
neither the contractor nor the City that had caused the damage, but rather it was apre-existing
condition.
Councillor K. Galloway questioned how safety of surrounding buildings is addressed through the ,
demolition permit process. Ms. D. Ross advised that the contractor is required to obtain appropriate
insurance. Mr. J. Witmer added that the demolition process is also subject to and must comply with
regulations under the Building Code.
Councillor J. Gazzola entered the meeting at this time.
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2012 - 249- CITY OF KITCHENER
Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned if responsibility to pay for apre-condition survey falls to the
neighbouring property owner, or if the property owner who is undertaking demolition is to offer
opportunity for one to the neighbouring property owner. Mr. A. Pinard advised that onus is on the
neighbouring property owner to follow-up on notice of a pending demolition. Mr. J. Willmer added
that there is no legal obligation to offer a neighbouring property owner benefit of apre-condition
survey reiterating that it is a civil matter between two property owners.
Mr. A. Pinnell then opened the floor to discussion of 6 specific questions posed by staff for
consideration and comment of the Committee. The first question asks: `Should demolition control
apply to all areas of the City, only certain areas, or not at all? If only certain areas, which areas?'
Councillor B. loannidis suggested that the policy should remain as apro-active approach and
questioned the impact on revenues if removed. Staff advised that it is not profit generating,
suggesting it costs more to process applications than revenues received.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic commented that this issue resulted from concerns of how to control infill
redevelopment rather than demolition itself, as it would relate to compatibility with the surrounding
area. He questioned if there is some mechanism to control the type of redevelopment in residential
areas, such as through design guidelines, rather than allowing the market to decide. Mr. A. Pinard
commented that if the redevelopment contemplated is permitted under zoning of the property there is
little control that the City has and if architectural controls are to be applied in single residential zones
it would be a significant departure from existing practice. He stated that there may be opportunity to
look at low rise zones under the site plari approval process; however, this would require an
amendment to the site plan by-law and Official Plan, as well as the fee by-law. Mr. Pinard further
advised that a change of this nature would have significant impact on staff resources and he would
require time to review the matter and report back on specifics. He noted that it would also add
substantial costs to citizens that would now require architectural drawings beyond what is required
now for a building permit and may also require introduction of Letters of Credit into the process. Mr.
Pinard advised that he was not aware of any other municipality who has ventured into architectural
controls and pointed out that staff currently uses site plan control to the fullest extent possible. He
added that the City cannot down-zone or take away regulatory rights, suggesting that the desired goal
may not be achievable under the site plan process.
Councillor Vrbanovic questioned if some middle ground could be established in terms of general
guideline standards without requiring site plan approval, noting that he was not in favour of additional
financial burden or otherwise adding to the difficulties of home ownership. Mr. Pinard stated that
some control is offered through the Building permit process but this only looks at whether design
meets Code or not, rather than to qualitative architectural control. He pointed out that the City has
urban design guidelines but noted that these are more weighted toward larger development because
of the potential for substantial impact; whereas, demolition applications are more typically seen for
single and/or semi-detached development. Councillor Vrbanovic questioned if urban design
guidelines could be developed in this instance and used without a site plan review. Mr. Pinard
advised that this would have to be reviewed by staff and a report brought back.
Councillor F. Etherington expressed the view that the DC process does not protect the integrity of an
established neighbourhood and he was not comfortable with the process unless change could be
made to protect against incompatible redevelopment in an established area. Mayor C. Zehr
reiterated that Council is obligated under Provincial regulation to approve demolition where
redevelopment is pending within existing zoning and has no other option. Ms. D. Ross added that in
terms of integrity of a neighbourhood, this will have already been determined through existing zoning
and Official Plan regulations and any development proposed must be in conformity and compatible
with the surrounding area.
Mayor C. Zehr commented that the concerns being raised go beyond the demolition process and if
the intent is to consider changes in zoning and Official Plan regulations then that is a larger
discussion for another day.
Councillor P. Singh suggested that the DC process is unnecessary and was not in agreement with
development of guidelines that would result in more restrictions and / or added costs. He referred to
a recent report card on homelessness and vacancy rates, suggesting that more restrictions on the
demolition process would exacerbate the City's efforts at intensification /infill redevelopment. He
expressed the view that Council should forego its role in the DC process for demolition applications
where redevelopment is imminent.
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2012 - 250- CITY OF KITCHENER
Councillor Z. Janecki expressed the view that the DC process should remain City-wide given
concerns that have come forward from the community and suggested that consideration should be
given to expanding on circulation of the courtesy notice. Specifically, he suggested that circulation
take place at the same time other departments and agencies are circulated so the community is
included from the beginning.
Councillor J. Gazzola questioned the cost to the City to administer this process. Ms. D. Ross advised
that substantial staff resource time is required to review applications, conduct building inspections,
prepare reports and courtesy notices, meet with residents to attempt to negotiate concerns and
attend Council at time the application is heard. She suggested that collectively, staff resources would
equate to approximately 10 hours per application and they receive on average about 50 applications
per year. Councillor Gazzola suggested that given Council has no authority to refuse an application
where redevelopment is imminent he would like to see Council move away from involvement in the
DC process and only consider applications where no redevelopment is proposed.
Councillor D. Glenn-Graham agreed with Councillor Gazzola's comments regarding applications
where redevelopment is planned. He suggested that for site plans, properties within a heritage
designated area architecturally must conform to the neighbourhood giving some peace of mind; and
in respect to courtesy notices, he suggested that they speak more to the Planning Act regulations so
there is better understanding among the community that Council is not in position to refuse an
application where redevelopment is proposed.
Councillor Y. Fernandes raised concerns of transparency if the DC policy was removed, noting that
the policy regarding permit issuance speaks to impact of demolition on abutting properties,
streetscape and neighbourhood stability, as well as, use of site in terms of zoning and compatibility
with adjacent properties and neighbourhood consultation, as factors on which staff will base a
recommendation to approve or refuse. She stated that the policy should remain as a means to
address neighbourhood concerns. Mr. A. Pinnell clarified that these factors relate to where no
redevelopment is proposed, wherein Council does have authority to either approve without condition
or refuse an application; however, staff go beyond requirements in the Planning Act to provide a
courtesy notice in recognition that Council wants to hear what their constituents have to say. Ms. D.
Ross added that while in the policy now, the purpose of reviewing the policy at this time is to
determine appropriate changes; and this may be something that Council could decide should be
removed from the policy given the frustration experienced on both the part of Council and the
community where no change can be effected. Councillor Fernandes suggested that the public may
have greater concerns if decisions are made without opportunity for their input and advised that she
would not support discontinuing the policy.
Councillor B. loannidis advised that given the process is revenue neutral, he would agree with others
who have suggested that the process should be less regulated and that Council not be involved
where redevelopment is imminent.
Mayor C. Zehr also agreed that where redevelopment is imminent that the policy should either not be
applied or be continued under delegated authority to staff wherein the process would still proceed
with the only exception being elimination of Council's role. He suggested that where Council has no
option to change the matter it would be better left in the hands of staff.
A show of hands was requested to give indication to staff as to the level of support from Council on
the following:
• discontinue existing practice for applications where redevelopment is imminent and Council
has no option for change -general consensus;
• continue existing practice for applications where no redevelopment is proposed -general
consensus;
• define an area for demolition control where redevelopment is imminent -generally opposed.
Mayor C. Zehr suggested that Questions 2 and 3 had been addressed through the discussion and
responses to Question 1 and Questions 4 and 5 were now mute. Mr. A. Pinnell agreed.
Question 6 was then considered which asks: 'Should the DC policies be changed to require more or
less public notification?'
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2012 - 251- CITY OF KITCHENER
Councillor Vrbanovic questioned the feasibility at time of Building issuing a permit that residents
abutting all sides of the subject property be notified and cautioned to take steps to have their
properties pre-assessed as a protective measure. Ms. D. Ross advised that staff had considered not
sending notification prior to Council's consideration, with the alternative of sending notification
afterward focusing on the demolition permit process and information that could be provided to them
around that. Mr. J. Witmer suggested that it may not be necessary, noting that at the time a building
permit is issued a sign must be posted on the property to identify what is happening on site; whereas,
for a demolition only the permit is required to be posted which is usually placed in the window of the
subject building. He suggested that it may simply be a matter of determining appropriate signage for
a demolition and how it is to be posted.
Councillor Fernandes expressed the view that the direction proposed is the wrong way to go,
maintaining that residents should continue to be notified so they are informed of what is to happen
and information provided on Council's role as an educational piece. She also suggested that another
discussion needs to happen on issues raised outside of the DC process in respect to the City's
approach to development, site plan approval and subdivision plans.
Councillor P. Singh expressed support for circulation to all abutting property owners as it would not be
overly onerous and should include explanation as to why Council cannot effect change where
redevelopment is proposed. He questioned any real benefit to be achieved in expanding circulation
beyond 60m; whereas, circulation to the abutting property owners ensures those immediately
impacted are aware.
Councillor F. Etherington commented that in established neighbourhoods circulation should go
beyond 60m and suggested that there should be a mechanism to allow their input to have impact on
the outcome. Mayor Zehr reiterated that the latter is secondary to discussions this date and while it
would take some time to do he was prepared to have those discussions at a later date.
Councillor J. Gazzola acknowledged the desire to inform residents but acknowledged the difficulty in
doing so where there is no control to effect change. He supported informing residents of a pending
demolition and in particular those immediately adjacent so that they can take measures to record the
condition of their property.
Councillor B. loannidis advised he could not support a more restrictive process that would adversely
affect the rights of property owners to alter their properties, but was in agreement that notice should
continue to be given with facts stated as to why Council cannot effect change. Councillors D. Glenn-
Graham and Z. Janecki also agreed with continuing notification and providing clear explanation of
Council's role under the Planning Act. Councillor Glenn-Graham added that indication should also be
given as to the projected timing of the redevelopment so residents know what period of time they can
expect the work to be done.
Mayor Zehr requested indication of the level of support for circulating a courtesy notice to indicate the
fact a demolition permit has been issued and the reasons as to why. A unanimous consensus was
given.
It was agreed that consideration as to whether circulation of the courtesy notice should remain at 60m
or be reduced to immediate abutting properties only, would be left to staff to consider and respond
with their recommendation in the report to come forward in the spring of 2013.
Councillor Fernandes suggested that it would be beneficial to have a presentation to understand
about the site plan review process as part of these discussions. Mayor C. Zehr clarified that site plan
review is an administrative process that Council has no involvement in. Mr. A. Pinard provided a brief
explanation of the administrative process, and expressed the view that staff would not support greater
notification than current practice, as it would give false expectation to residents of an opportunity to
influence the process beyond any authority to do so.
Councillor J. Gazzola questioned ability for Council to change the delegated authority for site plan
review and Mayor Zehr suggested that the question be considered as part of the larger discussion to
come.
Mr. A. Pinnell advised that over the fall and winter staff will be considering the input provided and will
be formulating a revised demolition control policy to come forward for consideration in the spring of
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2012 - 252- CITY OF KITCHENER
2013. At the request of Councillor P. Singh, Mr. A. Pinard agreed to follow-up with Council on
potential to advance timing of the report.
Moved by Councillor S. Davey
Seconded by Councillor P. Singh
"That an in-camera meeting of City Council be held this date to consider alitigation /potential
litigation matter which is also subject to solicitor-client privilege."
Carried.
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
MAYOR CLERK