Liberty from OMB eludes city planners

Dennis Hanagan –

At its June meeting city council deferred a recommendation from its Planning and Growth Management Committee that would have given the city more control over its planning decisions.

But that greater control would have dealt with only minor variance disputes and not with big high-rise developments that have the biggest impact on the city’s streetscape and infrastructure.

Council deferred setting up a Local Appeal Body (LAB), something the province gave the city power to do in 2006. LAB would be autonomous and deal with appeals of decisions made by the city’s Committee of Adjustment (COA).

Still, that would keep those same appeals from going to the Ontario Municipal Board, a body that council members feel meddles with city planning decisions and they’d like to be totally rid of it. OMB decision-makers can come from as far away as Northern Toronto to make rulings on Toronto’s matters.

When LAB was discussed at the May meeting of the Planning and Growth Management Committee the COA also came in for a crack on the knuckles for the way it conducts meetings.

“Members of the Committee of Adjustment, after having heard submissions to them in their meeting chamber, they huddle and speak quietly amongst themselves prior to conducting a vote,” PGMC chair Peter Milczyn said.

“In essence I would suggest they’re having their own private little in-camera meeting making deliberations. Is that possibly a breach of the open meeting regulations,” he said.

He moved a motion that the city solicitor and the Open Meeting Investigator meet with COA members and advise them how to conduct meetings and make decisions “in an appropriate manner.”

“It’s incredibly frustrating to the public. It gives it almost the impression of the Star Chamber,’ Milczyn said.

Following public consultations staff prepared a report for PGMC about setting up a LAB. City council will appoint LAB members who have adjudicative experience and familiarity with land use planning and law. Plans are to have it functioning by June 2015.

One-time startup costs are estimated at $905,000; operating costs are estimated at $2 million annually.

“Assuming the receipt of 300 appeal applications per year, to achieve the full cost recovery of direct operating costs associated with delivering this service, an application fee of $6,700 per application will be required,” the report said.

It adds council “could also choose to adopt LAB application fees that reflect partial cost recovery, (being a mix of user fees and property tax revenues), or fees that are solely covered through property tax revenues.”

Then-Trinity-Spadina MPP Rosario Marchese submitted Bill 20 to the legislature to have Toronto removed from the OMB’s oversight, but on May 1 the government and the official opposition voted to defeat it.

At PGMC’s May meeting Eileen Denny, vice-chair of the Confederation of Resident and Ratepayer Associations in Toronto, argued the $2 million for LAB would be better spent fixing the Committee of Adjustment.

Danielle Chin, Senior Planner, Policy & Government Relations at the Building Industry and Land Development Association, said the COA needs streamlining and the city should support the OMB with its “enhanced resources.”

She said replacing the OMB with LAB would mean the cost to appeal minor variance applications “would significantly increase from $125 to $6,700 per appeal.”