Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-13-031 - Demolition Control Policy and Proposed Demolition Control By-law REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 10, 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 x7668 WARDS INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: June 10, 2013 REPORT NO.: CSD-13-031 SUBJECT: REVISED DEMOLITION CONTROL POLICY AND PROPOSED DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW RECOMMENDATION: A. That By-law 79-157, known also as Chapter 620 of the Municipal Code, pertaining n Control Area, be repealed and that the Demolition Control and Delegated Authority By-law proposed by staff be approved in the form shown in the -June 10, 2013 attached to ReportCSD-13-031as . B. That Council Policies I-1005, I-1010, I-1015, and I-1020 pertaining to Demolition Control be repealed and that the Demolition Control Policy proposed by staff be approved June 10, 2013, attached to Report CSD-13-031as AppenB EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: -law. These changes would have the effect of streamlining the application process by demolition control policies and scoping the area to which demoli low-density residential neighbourhoods. Approval authority woul routine cases and where no heritage issues exist. Further, thes better align with the intent of the Planning Act and clarify the BACKGROUND: For a number of years, the Planning Division has been contemplats and opportunities related to demolition control with the objecti Recently, demolition control has been the subject of significant discussion Infrastructure Services Committee as well as in Council meetings In October 2012, Planning staff held a Council Strategy Session to review the topic of dem feedback on preparing a new demolition control policy (see Repor12-146 and minutes from this Session, attached as . Staff has considered this feedback, completed further research, consulted with the development industry, and h policy for consideration by Committee and Council. These proposed documents are timely given that demolition control applications have increased in rec 1 - 1 REPORT: Purpose of ProposedPolicy and By-law The purpose of the proposed demolition control policy and by-law Clarify the intent of demolition control; Streamline the demolition control process: delegate approval authority to staff in routine instances, o scope demolition control area, o reduce/eliminate circulation for comment; o Remove redundancies where other policies or legislation dominat Remove unnecessary application processing details from the poli Enhance the policy/by-law framework to make it relevant to tod, especially since applications are increasing. Clarifying Intent of Demolition Control The proposed by-law clarifies that the main purpose of demolition control is to maintain residential properties within a municipality and to give municip premature loss of viable housing stock. Demolition control applies only to properties that are used or designed to be used for residential purposes. Section 33 of the Planning Act provides the legislative authorit municipality as a demolition control area. Within a designated a whole or part of a residential property without demolition contr While demolition control may be used to ensure that proposed red property occurs in a timely manner, it is not intended to examin proposed redevelopment; other planning tools perform this functi plan control. Demolition Control Area Currently, all lands within the City of Kitchener are designated this regard, any building in Kitchener that is used or was desig purposes is subject to demolition control. Staff has reviewed t and is of the opinion that there are many areas where demolition co Industrial and commercial zones where residential uses are not limited due to incompatibility. Any residences within these are Intensification areas including mixed-use zones and Downtown zo expected or required that a demolished residential building be replaced with a new residential use; Environmentally constrained areas (e.g., Existing Use Zone and where residential uses are not permitted or desirable due to flo other environmental factors. Any residences within these areas Agricultural zones where residential densities are extremely low and the impact o demolition on adjacent properties is limited; Commercial-Residential zones where low-density residential uses within existing buildings ; 1 - 2 Medium to high density residential areas (e.g., R-7 through R-9 density residential development is either not permitted or is pe basis. Staff is of the opinion that only stable, low-rise residential n subject to demolition control. For the purposes of refining a demolition control area for the proposed by-law, these have been defined as being Residential On1) through Residential Six (R-6) zones only. In addition, there are further circumstances where demolition co where an unsafe or emergency order has been issued by the City a or where demolition is necessary to facilitate environmental cle contaminated. Further, where a public work has been approved by approved through an Environmental Assessment process, demolition These, and other circumstances have been incorporated into the p Repealing 4 Policies and Replacing with One Policy The proposed demolition control policy takes the essential conte and condenses it into one (see existing by-. Much of the content within the existing policies is procedure mapping wh staff procedure manual and not be within the policy. Some of the information from the current policies has been placed within the proposed demolition control The following elements are included in the proposed policy: Details of what departments are to be circulated on demolition comment; Details such as revised criteria for evaluating cases where no proposed; Clarification on when building inspections are warranted, what information the inspection report should contain; and Requirement for notice of impending demolition. Delegation of Approval Authority to Manager for Routine Applications Under the current structure, all demolition control applications regardless of the circumstances. legated to the Manager of Development Review. Delegating such applications to said Manager would have the effect of streamlining the process by drastically reduc application from initial receipt to decision by Council. Staff conservatively estimates that at least 3 weeks could be sa delegated to staff during the regular committee schedule. In so upwards of 5 weeks depending on when the application is submitte committee meeting date. In addition, delegation to the Manager would ensure smoother processing times during the summer committee/Council meeting hia a potential savings of at least 8 weeks. Further, staff time taken to prepare items fo agendas and Council agenda time for consideration would be made business. A routine application would include circumstances where the residential building proposed to be demolished is not listed as a non-designated property of cult and not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, and where any on 1 - 3 a. Under the Planning Act, where a building permit will be issued redevelopment of the lands, the approval authority must approve and may impose standard approval conditions to ensure timely red One type of routine application would include instances where re proposed via the submission of a building permit and/or site pla the applicant is in agreement with the imposition such condition b. The residential property is within a draft plan of subdivision servicing agreement has been registered. In such cases redevelo imminent even though no building permits will have been applied c. In the opinion of the Manager the residential property poses the health, safety, or security of the community. It is also noted that any application may be directed to Council discretion of the Manager Applications not falling into any one of the above circumstances Council. Typically, these circumstances would involve applicatia heritage designation, where no redevelopment is proposed in the applicant is not in agreement with the standard approval conditi In no case shall the Manager have the authority to refuse a demolition control applic It should be noted that there are other Ontario municipalities t authority for demolition control applications to staff, includin 2013) and the City of Hamilton (September 2009). Community Input Regarding and Notice of Demolition Control Applications Under the current policies, property owners within 60 metres of demolition control application are circulated for comment in cas redevelopment is planned. Under the proposed policy, there woul does a disservice to the public and Council by superficially app such power is provided under the Planning Act. and frustration for the public. Under the Planning Act, only th demolition control decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. Instead, staff is proposing that the applicant be required to post of the impending demolition, for information purposes only. Thi receipt of a related demolition permit application rather than t since it is the permit that is the final municipal process prior not required by any provincial or federal legislation or regulat the immediate area the knowledge that a building will be demolis ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The proposed demolition control by-law and policy relate to Comm Development and help to strengthen our existing communities and neighbourhoodsis by-law and policy seek to maintain residential properties and protect residential neighbourhoods from the premature loss of housing stock, while allowing other areas of the City to redevelop in different 1 - 4 ways. In addition, greater processing efficiency will be achieved, allowing staff resources to be spent on projects that have a greater effect on creating a safe and complete community. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Since the demolition control area is proposed to be scoped, staf control applications will be submitted. This may result in less revenue. However, staff resources can be more appropriately utilized for other City work customer service. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Staff consulted with The Waterloo Region Homebuilders Liaison Co (March 22, 2013 and April 19, 2013) review the current demolition control by-law and policies with the intent of tabling a new by- requested from the greater development industry. The minutes fr meetings and comments received from the development industry are The general public was not specifically notified of this initiat demolition control applications is not required under the Planni However, this report and the report and minutes from the October 22, 2012 Council Strateg da packages for this meeting, thereby informing the general public of the review that has taken place. The level of engagement used through this CONCLUSION: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed by-law and policy AB respectively, will meet the current and future needs of the City REVIEWED BY: Della Ross, Manager of Development Review ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO Community Services Department Attachments Appendix A Proposed Demolition Control By-law, dated June 10, 2013 Appendix B Proposed Demolition Control Policy, dated June 10, 2013 Appendix C Existing Demolition Control By-law and Policies Appendix D Report CSD-12-146 and minutes from October 2012 Council Strategy Session Appendix E Waterloo Region Homebuilders Liaison Committee Minutes from Mar 2013 and April 19, 2013 and development industry comments 1 - 5 Planning Act Building Code Act, 1992 Planning Act Municipal Act, 2001 Municipal Act, 2001 Municipal Act, 2001; Municipal Act, 2001 1 - 6 Building Code ActBuilding Code Act1992 Planning ActPlanning Act Planning Act Planning Act Planning Act 1 - 7 Planning Act Building Code Act Building Code Act Building Code Act Planning Act Planning Act 1 - 8 Ontario Heritage Act ; Planning Act Planning Act 1 - 9 1 - 10 COUNCIL POLICY RESOLUTION POLICY CONTENT 1 - 11 1 - 12 PROPERTYMAINTENANCE Chapter620 DEMOLITIONCONTROL Article1 DEMOLITIONCONTROLAREA 620.1.1Designation 620.1.2Permit-required „„„„ Article1 DEMOLITIONCONTROLAREA 620.1.1Designation AlllandwithintheCityofKitchenerisherebydesignatedasanareaofde- molitioncontrol. 620.1.2Permit-required Nopersonshalldemolishthewholeoranypartofanyresidentialproperty withintheCitywithoutbeingtheholderofademolitionpermitissuedby Councilundersection33ofthe PlanningAct,R.S.O.1990,c.P.13,as amended.By-law91-324,15October,1991. KITCHENER620.1JANUARY1992 1 - 13 1 - 14 1 - 15 1 - 16 1 - 17 1 - 18 1 - 19 1 - 20 1 - 21 REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD(S) INVOLVED: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT NO.: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: For information and discussion purposes only. BACKGROUND: REPORT: Planning Act residential propertiesPlanning Act 1 - 22 Planning Act Demolition control is intended to: Approval Authority Options for Deciding DC Applications) Demolition control is not intended to: timely Planning Act 1 - 23 Policy Framework Planning Act Summary of the Current Demolition Control Process in Kitchener DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1 - 24 Example responses: Example responses: Example responses: or Example responses: Example responses: Planning Act Example responses: Attachments: 1 - 25 1 - 26 1 - 27 1 - 28 1 - 29 1 - 30 1 - 31 Waterloo Region Home Builders Liaison Committee Meeting Notes from March 22, 2013 Present: Mike Seiling (co-chair) Peter Armbruster (co-chair) Julie Truong (minutes) Alain Pinard Alex Sumner Binu Korah Brad Trussler Craig Robson Dave Peres Della Ross Janine Oosterveld Larry Kotseff Paul Britton Rick Martins Victor Labreche 1. Review of Previous Minutes th There were no objections to the November 16 meeting minutes. 2. Online Permits Presentation Martina Schneider, Building, provided members with a presentatio benefits of Online Permits; apply for building permits, book ins inspection status and track permit fee rebates. Online Permits went live effective January 2, 2013 and certain functions require users to pre-regis information or to apply for permits online, please visit Kitchener.ca/onlinepermits. Please see Online Permit Presentation attachment for more inform 3. Demolition Control Policy Review Andrew Pinnell, Planning, provided members with an overview of Control Policy and the existing challenges. Andrew requested th feedback on how to improve this process. A Demolition Control P was handed out to all members. Please return this Comment Form at 519-741-2624 (fax) or Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca by Friday March 29, 2013. 4. Canada Post Mailbox Fee Peter Armbruster, Activa Group, stated the Homebuilders are push and have started a letter writing campaign. A letter of concern Albrecht. Della Ross, Planning, stated that the City will not be incorpora Canada Post requested. The City Solicitor has forwarded a lette corporation advising that there is no jurisdiction in the Planni conditions Canada Post is requesting. If the legislation change request at that time. 10:05 a.m. Andrew Pinnell and Larry Kotseff leave the meeting. 1 - 32 5. 2012 Development Manual Update Binu Korah, Engineering, provided an update on the 2012 Developm letter was sent out December 6, 2012 to the Industry stating tha been updated and all corresponding documents are available for v Kitchener website. For more information, please visit - http://www.kitchener.ca/en/businessinkitchener/Development_manua The next Development Manual update is scheduled for 2015. Binu with local Municipalities to try and create one manual. 6. City of Kitchener FCM Submission LTIP Update Mike Seiling, Building, reported there the City of Kitchener sub Projects Infrastructure Renewal Program, Recreation Facility Expansions, and Trails Strategic Implementations. UPDATE: Prior to the minute distribution, provided the following update; Through the Community Infrastructure Investment Fund, tw approved. The projects were approximately $250,000 for the washrooms in Vi Park and $250,000 for upgrades to 3km of trails at Hearth Green Greenbrook), Henry Sturm Greenway (Iron Horse to Lawrence) and H Park (Wilson to Wabanaki). There was a small media event with the MP Woodworth, Mayor Zehr, of council and staff in February. 7. Site Development Works Notification Form Mike Seiling, Building, provided members with a sample letter th local Engineering and Surveyors outlining what is required for Final Grading The sample letter was sent to local Engineering Consultants and Su 6, 2013. The purpose of the letter was to remind the industry of regularly missing on Final Grading Approval requests. With the industry submitting the correct information, the users can expect final grading lett quicker including permit fee rebates. The City would like to tha Consultants for working with Angela Dennis (Building) to complet Please see Site Development Works Notification Form for more inf 8. February 2013 Building Permit Statistics Mike Seiling, Building, provided members with an update and over activity levels. 9. Action Guideline Please see action guideline attachment for updates. 1 - 33 10. Other Business Alain Pinard, Planning, stated there will be a newsletter sent o Plan Review. The next draft will be circulated sometime in May. some significant changes from the first one. The third draft wi end of the year. Dates are to come in the newsletter. Janine Oosterveld, Planning, stated nomination forms for the Urb eligible projects have already been mailed out. For more inform City of Kitchener website - http://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/UrbanDesignAwards.a. Mike Seiling, Building, congratulated Peter Armbruster as the ne Officer at Activa Group. Congratulations Peter! The Co-Chairs presented John Lowater and Steven Roorda with Certificates Appreciation thanking them for being active members on the WRHBA Committee. John and Steven have volunteered their time on the L and we wish them well in their future endeavors. Meeting adjourned 10:35 a.m. ***Next meeting: Friday April 19, 2013 1 - 34 Waterloo Region Home Builders Liaison Committee Meeting Notes from April 19, 2013 Present: Mike Seiling (co-chair) Peter Armbruster (co-chair) Julie Truong (minutes) Alex Sumner Barbara Robinson Craig Robson Dave Peres Della Ross Kevin Fergin Paul Britton Ron Beatson Ruth-Anne Goetz Andrew Pinnell Carlos DaSilva Barbara Steiner Carrie Musselman 1. Review of Previous Minutes nd The March 22 meeting minutes were reviewed. 2. Demolition Control Policy Review Update Andrew Pinnell, Planning, provided members with an update on the Control Policy. There are 5 main themes - 1.Delegated authority to staff in cases of routine applications (where redevelopment proposed, and there are no heritage issues, etc.) 2.Scope the DC Area to stable, low-rise residential neighbourhoods (exclude from commercial, industrial, intensification areas, inc Downtown) 3.Define certain exemptions for DC, for example: If an order has been issued under 15.10 of the OBC (emergency order) or 15.9 of OBC (unsafe order). To facilitate environmental remediation Imminent implementation of capital works project 4.Eliminate public circulation for comment except perhaps in the c where no redevelopment is planned. 5.Delete 4 policies and replace with 1 policy: Improve clarity, si remove redundant wordage where the Planning Act provides directi The intent is to streamline, clarify, and simplify the process. these are proposed themes and have not yet been finalized. The th comment form has been extended to April 26, 2013. Make sure you forward your comments to Andrew by this day. 1 - 35 3. DC Reserve Summary Update Ruth-Anne Goetz, Finance, provided an overview of the DC Reserve members inquired if there is a report that tracks permits where and also a report showing the breakdown of some of the dollar am Seiling, Building, will follow up with Greg Hummel, Finance, to he along with Ruth-Anne can attend the next meeting and answer the industry qu 4. Review Overlap Core Environmental Features Paul Britton, MHBC, raised a concern about the ESPA. The proposed Regional Plan identifies core environmental features which include more than E Regional Staff/EEAC are now involved in reviewing virtually all adds cost and is a duplication of effort. The Region is also req to review landscape plans for storm ponds. There needs to be an approved process put in place and streamlined. This topic warrants a discussion with all municipalities. Does EEAC need to be involved in core environmental issues? Giv and report back at the next meeting. 5. Temporary Roads in Plans of Subdivisions (RSC) Mike Seiling, Building, stated the Ministry of Environment has c regarding change of use of property to a more sensitive use that Site Conditions. The Chief Building Official cannot issue a bui Site Condition is required. This change may cause a hold up whe permits on lands within plans of sub-divisions that were tempora Moving forward, Building, Planning, and Legal departments are working t of Site Condition wording for new Sub-division Agreements. 6. March 2013 Building Permit Statistics. Mike Seiling, Building, provided members with an update and over lower than normal activity levels. 7. Action Guideline Please see action guideline attachment for updates. 8. Other Business Barbara Robinson will check with Transportation & Planning staff meeting to clarify permit requirements within the right of way i 1 - 36 Homeowners are getting parking tickets parking on the street whe is being done. Peter Armbruster, Activa Group, announced Alex Sumner as the new Activa Group and he will remain on the Kitchener Liaison Committ Congratulations Alex! Barbara Robinson, Engineering, stated she is currently experienc cuts and is looking into refining the process. Kevin Fergin, St a list of preselected contractors. Barbara will give a further offline meeting. Barbara was asked why Huron Road was under budget. Following th following information was provided: the low tender was $850,000 all of the contingency; there is $500,000 left for final asphalt. Della Ross, Planning, stated electronic signatures are acceptabl Accepting copies of surveys need to be confirmed with Legal Depa Seiling stated the embossing on the plan of survey is critical p staff. Craig Robson, Lawyer, will look into the Survey Act to f requirements and will follow up with more information at the nex Meeting adjourned 10:50 a.m. ***Next meeting: Friday May 10th, 2013 1 - 37 1 - 38 1 - 39 1 - 40 1 - 41