report for executive committee september 24, 2008...

Zoning Bylaw Amendments and Enforcement

Recommendation:That the September 2, 2008, Planning and Development Department report 2008PDD035 be received for information.

Report SummaryThis report provides an update to an administrative inquiry on the policy for zoning bylaw enforcement.

Previous Council/Committee ActionAt the May 7, 2008, Executive Committee meeting, the following motion was passed:

That Administration provide a report to Executive Committee by September 24, 2008, on the policy (Development Compliance Inspection), as outlined in Attachment 1 of the April 1, 2008, Planning and Development report 2008PDP028, prior to bringing forward recommended Zoning Bylaw amendments and that the report include the implementation strategy of the policy.

Report As in many Canadian

municipalities, Planning and Development Department enforces the regulations of the Zoning Bylaw on a complaint basis. Under this passive approach, the Department has a single development officer assigned to respond to enforcement situations that are relatively complex and require an interpretation of the

Zoning Bylaw regulations. The Department has more than 15 Municipal Enforcement Officers (MEO) assigned to respond to enforcement situations that are less complex, but more numerous.

While this passive approach has provided an acceptable balance between cost and enforcement, it is only acceptable to the extent that it reflects community standards.

Administration conducted a review of inspection services, the results of which are in Attachment 1. This outlines an active approach to enforcement which formed the basis of discussion/consultation with stakeholders including Administration, Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues (EFCL), Urban Development Institute (UDI), Canadian Homebuilders Association (CHBA), Association Land Surveyors of Alberta (ALSA) and Alberta Association of Architects (AAA). The initial proposal adds five permanent staff to specifically focus on active enforcement.

The consultation process with stakeholders listed above did not reveal significant opposition to this proposal, although there were questions about the specifics of complaints that have led to a reconsideration of the current policy. This was particularly important in relation to the requirement for survey information on low density residential development that could add to the cost of a home. In response to these concerns, examples of developments where survey information would have been valuable have been included in the attached report. Administration will be considering budget requests for 2009.

ROUTING – Executive Committee | DELEGATION – M. GarrettWRITTEN BY – J. Price | September 2, 2008 – Planning and Development Department 2008PDD035 of 2

E20

Zoning Bylaw Amendments and Enforcement

Public ConsultationConsultation with a number of stakeholders was undertaken. The consultation consisted of a review of the draft zoning bylaw enforcement proposal at a meeting between administration and stakeholder representatives listed previously.

Budget/Financial ImplicationsAs indicated in the attached report, it is estimated that staffing costs to support this initiative would be about $350,000 annually exclusive of office space and necessary (minor) equipment. These costs will be captured in budget estimates for 2009.

Attachments1. Report on Development Compliance

Inspection.

of 2

Attachment 1

Report on Development Compliance Inspection

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations on a new policy with regard to Development Compliance Inspection. This policy will mark a departure from a strictly complaint based zoning bylaw enforcement model to a more proactive approach.

BACKGROUND:

A recent anecdotal increase in complaints related to zoning bylaw enforcement has raised the awareness of the issue of compliance with approved development permits (with or without variance). This anecdotal observation is complemented by attachment 2 which contains examples of applicable problematic developments currently known to the Planning and Development Department. As the current model is one of reaction to complaints, it is clear that a complete list of all instances of zoning related concerns is not known. In fact, the list at attachment 2 represents only a small portion of those issues that would be obvious in a more proactive environment since many citizens are reluctant to make their voices heard, or may be unaware that the City Administration shares their concerns.A single Development Control Officer 1 position (with some contribution by Municipal Enforcement Officers) is currently allocated to zoning bylaw enforcement issues.

SURVEY OF OTHER CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES:

A survey of zoning enforcement methods of other Canadian municipalities is attached (see attachment 1). Many municipalities are reactive as is the case currently in Edmonton, with the notable exception of Calgary and Vancouver. Both of these cities require post occupancy permits on new construction as well as survey of foundation elevations. In the case of Calgary, a staff of 1 Chief, 3 Senior, and 11 Area Development Inspectors carries out this function. Vancouver is similar to Calgary with the exception that their roughly 70 person staff also carries out work that the City of Edmonton does in the newly created Community Standards Branch (standard of maintenance, signs, untidy premises etc). It would appear then that as our closest comparison, the City of Calgary, with 15 staff for 100% verification of new construction is instructive.

OBSERVATION ON SURVEY:

In comparison to the surveyed municipalities there are some obvious differences with the current City of Edmonton's enforcement operation. Other cities have a reasonably large staff concentrating on planning related enforcement. The level of staffing and the level of enforcement/compliance differ in each municipality.

Page 1 of 14 Report: 2008PDD035 Attachment 1

Attachment 1

RECOMMENDATION OR GOAL/OBJECTIVE:

Make changes to how we do business by providing a higher level of planning related enforcement and increased follow-up enforcement of Development Permit conditions and complaints. As well, it is recommended that there be a reintroduction of proactive enforcement, with this capability constituted within the newly created Current Planning Branch/Development Approvals Section.Note: the existing enforcement of minor planning enforcement and seasonal/time related functions as landscape inspections for the return of a landscape security will initially remain with the Community Standards Branch.

OPTIONS:

Status quo – This option is not acceptable. Instances of zoning related concerns are increasing, and the current complaint based philosophy is not adequate.

Partial/selected follow-up enforcement with an acceptable level of proactive enforcement –This option is considered reasonable. While not a full occupancy permit related model, this option does ensure a quality control/quality assurance model that is critical to measurement of any business process. This is considered to be the best option for Edmonton at this time.

Occupancy permit (100% verification) and proactive enforcement (Calgary model) - This option represents a large change, including a large staff, and the most radical departure from current practice. While being far more comprehensive, it is the most expensive option in staff and resources.

ADVANTAGES OF SELECTED PROACTIVE APPROACH:

Greatly reduced citizen complaints pertaining to zoning enforcement. Zoning enforcement quality assurance/quality control function enabled. Improved standard for development and urban design. Improved performance indicators/measurement targets can be more clearly

established and communicated to Council and citizens.

DISADVANTAGES OF SELECTED PROACTIVE APPROACH:

Increased resource bill from complaint based approach. Potential lack of acceptance from development industry and some citizens due to

potential for extra time and money. Potential for increase in legal resources from enforcement.

STAKEHOLDERS:

Council, Planning and Development, EFCL, Homebuilders Association, UDI and AAA. With the exception of City Council, each of these stakeholders has been engaged


Attachment 1

separately to refine the draft position and their comments used to make applicable amendments to this proposal. While the intention was to bring all stakeholders together for a final review of the document, this did not happen mostly due to there being no major issues with the report, but also due to busy summer schedules. There was a second round of dialogue with EFCL, where the suggestion was put forward that complaint resolution should be more clearly related to the complainant, perhaps by e-mail or letter. The suggestion of updating Community Leagues on a periodic basis as to resolution of complaints in that community was also made. These are valid observations, and will be more definitively examined when confirming process descriptions as this proposal is finalized in the next few months.

One main theme of the consultation was that this improvement to the Planning and Development Department’s capability in zoning bylaw enforcement was generally well understood and accepted. Some examples are included in attachment 2 that will reinforce the general support amongst stakeholders for this enforcement initiative.

City Council will have the opportunity through committee to make any changes deemed necessary.

BUSINESS FRAMEWORK:

As opposed to the current policy of complaint based enforcement, the new approach will be essentially three ‘filters’ in the zoning enforcement process, these being complaint based, Quality Assurance/Quality Control percentage based inspection, and proactive enforcement. These components of the new approach are elaborated on below.

1. Low Density Residential (MNO and suburban) follow-up enforcement - Focus will be on MNO.

2. Medium + High Density Residential/Commercial/Industrial follow-up enforcement - Focus will be Residential and Commercial within the mature neighbourhoods and the EDC geographic area.

3. Proactive Enforcement

4. Complaint Based Enforcement

USING A % BASED APPROACH, THE FOLLOWING WOULD APPLY:

1. Low Density Residential

MNO - 20% inspection rateSuburban - 10 % inspection rate


Attachment 1

Note: in addition to physical inspection at the completion of construction (at the rates indicated above), three dimensional survey shots at the foundation and surveyed height of roof truss installation may also be required depending on the development. This ‘new’ requirement is in addition to the existing requirement (Bylaw 12800 section 52.4) for an applicant to submit a current state and post construction grading plan to allow the Development Officer to calculate the height of a development. This means that after considering stated grade, only development having potential impact would require the applicant to provide additional information at their cost. Those developments that are pushing to the maximum envelope, particularly large infill homes would be targeted/flagged. Discretion to require a survey will be exercised by the Development Officer, and as this discretionary authority does not currently and specifically exist, a bylaw amendment will be necessary. Discretionary surveys will allow the Development Officer to assess not only height, but site coverage of the structure as well. Physical inspection will primarily include verification of front, rear and flanking yards, first floor and roof heights, and any condition of development required by the Development Officer.

2. Medium + High Density Residential/Commercial/Industrial

Medium + High Density Residential/Commercial within the EDC - 100% Medium + High Density Residential/Commercial within the inner city - 20%

inspection rate Medium + High Density Residential/ Commercial within suburban areas - 10%

inspection rate Industrial - 10% inspection rate

Note: as in the MNO, there are numerous developments that are at the maximum envelope, therefore additional information may be required to confirm compliance.

3. Proactive Enforcement

It is difficult to attach a number to this as this is here to ensure that the well being of the City is looked after without relying on complaints by the public or issues being referred by other groups within the City. In addition a degree of flexibility in staff resources will be necessary to investigate specific projects as requested by Council or Senior Management. As well some capability will be necessary to carry out inspections not included above, such as downtown parking lots, and verification of Edmonton Design Committee conditions. It is anticipated this flexibility will involve roughly 20% of resources required for above noted inspections.

Examples of proactive enforcement are:

Qualitative and quantitative analysis and necessary enforcement of and reporting on surface parking in the downtown. Poorly maintained (likely non-permitted) surface parking has a highly negative impact on urban quality of life, but is arguably not an


Attachment 1

issue that an individual citizen feels ‘ownership’ of to the extent that they would lodge a complaint.

Verification of development permit conditions is dealt with only on a complaint basis. This is particularly a problem in relation to commercial and industrial development where again lack of ‘ownership’ of a problem may result in no complaint being submitted. In order to ensure that development permit conditions are adhered to into the future, proactive enforcement would be necessary.

Landscaping conditions after developer warranty periods are over (two growing seasons). This ensures that landscaping requirements continue to be observed.

4. Complaint Based Enforcement

Complaint based enforcement will continue as is currently performed.

RESOURCES/STAFFING:

Based on initial estimates of manpower, a team of five persons would be required. The team would be comprised of:

One Development Planner to handle more complex applications, as well as provide mentoring to Planning Technicians.

Four Planning Technicians operating in four quadrants of the City.

The additional cost is approximately $350,000 per year (salaries), without consideration of other costs (office space, equipment etc). It is believed that an occupancy permit inspection regime would require a staff of at least double this, or 10+ persons. Filling these positions with staff having development planning training and experience (i.e. a Development Officer and Planning Technicians) is essential for three reasons: Technical nature of zoning issues. Ability to rotate personnel into and out of this group from the Development Approvals

Section, wherein the group will be located. Flexibility to add or reassign resources to/from the group and the Development

Approvals Section based on current workload is maintained.

IMPLEMENTATION STEPS AND TIMEFRAME:

Finalize initial draft - 11 Feb 08 Engage stakeholders – June-August 08 Refine draft - August 08 Final report and roundtable discussion – August 08 Presentation to City Council – September 08 Necessary PD's / hiring process / process descriptions / necessary POSSE

upgrades – four to six months Launch - Spring 09 (estimate)


Attachment 1

FOLLOW UP:

Most critically, this zoning bylaw enforcement process is one of AUDIT AND LEARN. This is intended to mean that the assumptions that have been used to derive the initial plan will be assessed on an annual basis and refinements made to more adequately satisfy any inconsistencies that are found to be the result of incorrect initial assumptions, change in direction from Senior Management and Council, or changing community standards. Reporting of annual functions and plans will be through the normal ‘chain of command’ or as requested by Senior Management and/or Council.

In addition, finalization of process descriptions and details referred to in implementation steps will submitted to dialogue with stakeholders consulted on this report. Prior to the launch of this initiative, consultation will have taken place on the ‘final’ product.


Attachment 1

Attachment 1 – Survey of Canadian Municipalities

Development Inspection Enforcement City of VancouverCommunity Services, Development ServicesContact: Carlene Robbins, Manager of Property Use (604) 873-7563This city has a Co-coordinated Task force consisting of:

20 Building Inspectors14 Electrical Inspectors18 Plumbing Inspectors23 District Property Use Inspectors + 2 SupervisorsThe District Property Use Inspectors who are responsible for enforcement of all non-trade related by-laws. Some of these include: Licence By-law Zoning and Development By-law Parking By-law Untidy Premises By-law Standards of Maintenance By-law Sign By-law The role of the Property Use Inspector is to try and resolve neighbourhood issues and problems through a number of methods including, conflict resolution, facilitation and in some cases mediation.The majority of the Property Use Inspectors work revolves around complaints related to infraction of the above-noted by-laws. Examples of some typical Property Use Inspection work includes illegal suites, businesses operating without a business licence, overgrown and untidy sites, prohibited signs, and standards of maintenance issues related to apartment buildings.An Occupancy Permit is the last step after Development and Building approval. Both Trade and Property Use Inspectors go out to check compliance prior to issuing this permit.A Site Survey/Lot Grading plan is required at the footing and foundation stage and the Building Inspectors require this certificate prior to the framing stage.Summary: Vancouver is not only reactive with enforcement but proactive in new projects.

City of CalgaryPlanning and BuildingContact: Grant Chollak, Development Inspector (403) 268-80461 Chief Development Inspector3 Senior Development Inspectors11 Area Development Inspectors


Attachment 1

When a Development Permit is applied for a Development Completion Permit is generated and entered into the appropriate DI’s to do list for follow up, length of time depending on scope of project. Prior to granting occupancy a DCP is required. A Development Inspector deals with:

Enforcement (Illegal Land Uses) Risk Management (Permits out of system such as Government Buildings not

requiring City approval). DCP inspections for all new construction (these permits are required before a

new building or site can be occupied. They are issued after an inspection shows that all Development Permit conditions have been met and the construction reflects the approved plans).

Development Inspectors are usually required to have a Planning degree and some enforcement background and are members of ADOA. They are also responsible for securities. If occupancy is required prior to DCP issuance money is posted (150% estimated cost of deficiencies, such as exterior finishes, landscaping, amenity areas, parking lots).Development Inspector II’s have authority to sign DCP and to do minor revisions to plans in the field providing they do not require a variance.In Calgary once a foundation is poured and after subfloor/mainfloor a Geodetic survey is required to determine grading is correct.The city has developed templates for illegal uses to assist DI’s in the field.

Summary: Calgary is not only reactive with enforcement but proactive in new projects.

City of OttawaZoning By-LawsContact: Craig Calder, Co-coordinator of Zoning Bylaw Central (613) 580-2424 ext. 28355In the Five Downtown Wards:7 Level 3 Property Standards Officers10 Level 2 Property Standards Officers3 Level 1 Property Standards Officers The City does zoning inspections and enforces the bylaw when it receives complaints.Craig Calder is in charge of 5 downtown high density wards. They are approximately 20% proactive and 80% reactive with development compliance. Recently they have initiated a more proactive approach with 3 districts in terms of noting problems not reported when they are doing their complaint driven calls.Terry Beatty (Coordinator West, extension 33231) is in charge of 9 wards and there are also 9 East wards that deal with suburban, rural areas. They are complaint driven and deal with existing problems.Ottawa puts their employees through OAPSO (Ontario Association Property Standards Officers) program which is also what the City of Toronto does. The Level 3 officers are the ones that deal primarily with zoning issues.


Attachment 1

For basic residential projects the city requires a legal survey as soon as the foundation is in to ensure compliance and the building inspectors do the basic zoning checks. Norm Allen, (extension 41365) is the person I initially spoke to who heads the building inspections group.In 2001 the City of Ottawa amalgamated 11 municipalities so they are currently trying to bring all the different bylaws under one and it is proving to be difficult, one small example being a 6’ fence requirement in all areas except one that allowed 7’ fence heights. Now all fences heights are allowed to go to 7’. Summary: Ottawa is primarily reactive with enforcement, the building inspectors are responsible for basic zoning compliance with new buildings and a legal survey at the foundation stage promotes further compliance.

City of TorontoDevelopment Application Review ProjectContact: Carleton Grant, Manager Application Review Project (416) [email protected]

In March, 2002, City Council established the Development Review Task Force to oversee the development review processes.The City is divided into four geographical areas; building division offers 2 types of reviews, Pre-Application Applicable Law (PAL) and Preliminary Project Review (PPR).The initial application is treated much the same as it is here, with circulation to all departments, transportation, drainage, as well as forestry and sometimes heritage/urban design.The Planners are the case managers for all other agencies, once the development is approved and the building approved the building inspectors would advise of development compliance issues.They also have Site Plan Inspectors; they are responsible for checking fountains, granite pavers, other similar details and landscaping issues. In addition they have a licensing and standards group along the lines of Ottawa (OAPSO), Property Standard Officers. They are somewhat comparable to our Bylaw people that deal with complaints with respect to parking, garbage. Summary: Toronto is primarily reactive with enforcement; the building inspectors are responsible for basic zoning compliance with new buildings.

City of WinnipegDevelopment and Inspections DivisionContact Martin Gree, Administrator Zoning & Permits Branch (204) 986-5147 5 Area Zoning Inspectors20% of their work is in the field80% is office relatedComplaint, reactionary driven


mailto:[email protected]

Attachment 1

Last year the City sent a group out to the City of Vancouver to look at how they manage their Enforcement Task Force (development and building in one agency) and are planning to go in that direction in phases. This involves tying Development Compliance with an Occupancy Completion Certificate.

Summary: Winnipeg is only reactive with enforcement.

City of LethbridgePlanning and Development DepartmentContact: Pam, Development Officer (403) 320-39204 Development Officers The Development Officers do their own inspections and it is complaint driven, reactionary only. They have discussed looking into some kind of completion certificate however to date they do not have the resources to do proactive enforcement.

Summary: Lethbridge is only reactive with enforcement.

City of Red DeerPlanning and Development DepartmentContact: Russ Pye, Inspections Supervisor (403) 309-85822 Compliance Officers For residential projects after development and building are approved and the building is up a Real Property Report must be submitted and cleared prior to final sign off. This isn’t required on commercial projects.Complaints are handled by Compliance officers.Prior to the Building Permit engineering draws elevations of location of footings and it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure they are placed correctly. Summary: Red Deer is partially reactive with enforcement combined with the RPR after the fact. If there is a problem with the development they need to apply for a variance.

City of SaskatoonDevelopment Service BranchContact: Paul Whitenect, Manager Zoning Compliances & Licensing Department (306) 975-81831 Development Officer I – Deals with Business Licenses1 Development Officer I – Enforces Signs, Fences, Parking3 Development Officer II’s – Responsible for all other Enforcement Complaints2 Development Officer III’s – Do the reviews/approval on Commercial/Industrial/Multi-Family There are Permit Clerks that look at all 1 & 2 unit residential units. As far as dealing with Development Compliance the Building Inspector’s check the setbacks and site


Attachment 1

coverage in conjunction with the Building Inspection. The setbacks are fairly consistent throughout the city so it is fairly straight forward.There is a mandatory inspection that takes place and a permit isn’t closed off until all aspects (zoning, building) have been dealt with. Due to the high volume of open permits the City made an active push to follow up on outstanding open permits moving them to compliance or enforcement.The DO position is usually filled by someone with a Planning Degree or at least 5 years experience with the zoning bylaw and related issues.The city also uses business licensing as a cross check to ensure all buildings operating have a building permit in place, if not; enforcement is handled at that time.

Summary: Saskatoon is mainly reactive with enforcement with one/two unit dwelling, depending on Building Inspectors to pick up on setbacks, they are proactive with Commercial projects and have Development Inspection ensuring compliance with landscaping (no landscaping security is required, they are looking into this) as well as the other issues. City of ReginaPlanning & Building DivisionContact: Doug Ross, Development Control Officer (306) 777-62502 Development Control Officers

The Building Permitting area looks at the residential applications and if there are any complications with zoning they refer it back to a DCO. Saskatoon & Regina are quite similar with the residential applications.All Commercial/Industrial and Multi-Family Residential are reviewed by the Development Control Officers and approved. They also go on site and do a review to make sure that it complies in terms of the zoning details.The Development Control Officers are both Architectural Technologists with their training.There is also a Bylaw Enforcement area that deals with complaint driven issues and work only in the field.Two years ago they set up a Property Standards/Enforcement Team working with Police/Fire & Health officials to deal with problems that could be a health issue. The contact for more information on this initiative is Dwayne Flaman (Manager Property Standards Team, (306) 777-7961.

Summary: Regina is not only reactive with enforcement but proactive in new projects.

City of BurnabyPlanning DepartmentContact: Theresa, CSR (604) 294-7400

Technically the Building Department takes care of Development compliance. All single family and duplex dwellings are checked at the time of building inspection and are initially looked at by Plan Checkers. This area is made up of two counter clerks, three


Attachment 1

residential plan checkers and four commercial plan checkers who receive and process building permits for all types of construction. They are also responsible for issuing demolition permits, in-law suite licenses and processing referrals to the Board of Variance for proposed construction which does not comply with the Zoning Bylaw.Commercial and large projects are required to go through zoning approval, once that is done it goes to PPA (Principal Plan Approval) for a Planner to check. A building permit is then issued, construction takes place then Building Inspectors go out and look at zoning issues as well. Another possible contact is Dave Iaquinta (604) 294-7349. He heads the Building Department. The building division consists of one supervisor, one senior inspector and seven field inspectors, including one assigned to license referrals. The field inspectors are assigned the task of ensuring that buildings and structures erected within the City comply with the applicable Building, Zoning, and Sign Bylaws.

Summary: City of Burnaby has a connection between the building and development; inspections for zoning are handled by the building department.

City of SurreyLand Development & BuildingContact: Mehran Nazeman, Manager Commercial Building Div. (604) [email protected] Residential projects first go through subdivision & lot creation where design guidelines are established and these are provided to an outside consultant. Every application has to go through the private consultant that reviews the plans and stamped copies are submitted to the City. It is the responsibility of the applicant to go through the private consultant and pay required fees for review.All commercial, industrial and multi-family applications go through City Council with the exception of some industrial buildings. Once it has been approved at 3 rd reading it goes to building permit stage. The Plan Checkers compare the drawings attached to the Development Permit and if there are any significant changes it is brought to the Planners attention.For a building permit an Architect must supply letters, a checklist is signed and sealed off and once a building goes to the construction stage it is the responsibility of the Architect to comply with the letter of assurance. At building check stage Schedule C from the architect is supplied that everything has been complied to.For commercial and large projects a form survey is required to ensure the correct placement of the building prior to the concrete being poured.Landscaping is a priority for Surrey and is handled in a completely separate department.

Summary: City of Surrey has a connection between building and development; inspections for zoning are handled by the building department, as well as having an entire department dedicated to landscaping compliance.


Attachment 1

Attachment 2 – List of problematic developments

BACKGROUND:

To reiterate the business process model proposed in this report, there are proposed to be three ‘filters’ in the zoning enforcement process, these being quality assurance/quality control percentage based inspection, proactive enforcement and complaint based. For comparison sake with this proposed business framework, examples of problematic developments are included below:

1. QA/QC

Low density residentialWhile there have not been significant issues in suburban housing development, there have historically been grade, elevation, and adherence to permit issues in low density infill housing and garage development. In the recent past there has been a continuation of neighbourhood complaints related to large infill houses in the mature areas of the City, and this has captured substantial media attention. Most recent examples of grading and elevation issues include locations at: Millcreek area, University area, Glenora Community, Highlands Community, and River Valley.This is by no means a complete list of impacted communities, but is representative of developments that may have benefited from more detailed survey information and follow up.

Medium/high density residential/commercial/industrialThere have been a number of varied complaints and major observed issues in this area. Issues have been:

Nightclubs adhering to development conditions for seating and parking, Condos selling required visitor parking spaces, Follow up on placement, maintenance and cataloguing of public art as

recommended by the Edmonton Design Committee.

As related immediately below, issues in this category may not have the direct impact on an individual who would then initiate a complaint, even though the community impact might be large.

2. Proactive

Very little proactive enforcement is currently performed and therefore issues related with proactive enforcement are not provided.


Attachment 1

3. Complaints

The single Development Control Officer taking care of the existing complaint based enforcement structure currently monitors over 900 separate files. These complaints run the gamut from fence heights and decks in new subdivisions, to larger and more complicated and sensitive issues impacting the mature neighbourhood overlay, or development permit conditions requiring detailed reference to the zoning bylaw. Although this individual deals with many files in one day, it is clear that only those of highest importance and urgency receive immediate attention, while others may wait for lengthy periods of time for resolution. A more robust effort in dealing with complaints will reduce waiting time for resolution, and simultaneously establish clearer time targets for other complaint files to be completed.


report for executive committee september 24, 2008...

Documents