����ӰԺ

Even though they were published more than a few years ago, two interconnected studies into the site plan assessment approval process and how it impacts development and potentially increases development costs are still relevant, says the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA).

In 2013 the OAA released an analysis of the site plan approval process by the planning consulting firms Bousfields Inc. and Altus Group.

A follow up OAA Site Plan Delay Analysis report, authored by Altus Group, was released in 2018. Requested by the OAA’s own members and the provincial government, its purpose was to update the economic data in the previous 2013 report.

“Our members wanted to quantify both direct and indirect costs of site plan applications. Direct costs include the application fees paid to municipalities while indirect costs include time, taxes paid on vacant land by the developer, carrying costs of loans, and exposure to construction costs and labour inflation,” says association president Settimo Vilardi.

The data in the two studies underscored the economic and procedural challenges of the site plan approval process, says Vilardi in explaining why the OAA commissioned the studies.

Just a small sampling of the responses from the architects interviewed was that more than 35 per cent of applications take more than nine months to obtain approval, while approximately 50 per cent of all applications required three or more resubmissions before approval.

Some of the key findings from the consultations with municipal planning directors were that the majority of development applications took less than nine months to obtain approval and the majority were approved with less than three resubmissions.

The planners also identified three top elements impacting site plan approval timing: Slow or a lack of response from applicants with respect to suggested revisions; incomplete applications; and a slow or lack of response from outside agencies.

As for developers, a number of positive and negative themes emerged in a roundtable discussion with 18 representatives of the industry. Participants expressed frustrations with delays in the approval process which result in unpredictable extra costs. At the same time, they indicated an efficient and co-ordinated process can create positive experiences.

The issues, concerns and findings outlined in the studies are having an impact, says Vilardi, when asked about how the provincial, municipal, and development industry response has been.

As an example, he points to a major change enacted in Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act. The bill changed the site plan approval process to allow municipalities to delegate site plan approval control to municipal staff.

“The OAA has supported this for more than a decade when it was first identified in the 2013 report as a recommendation for improvement.”

Previously, that control was the responsibility of a council committee or subcommittee which could increase approval times and project costs. If all other approvals such as rezoning are in place, there is no reason why staff shouldn’t have that authority, he says.

The OAA’s call for streamlining site plan applications and exempting certain developments was also picked up in Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. Under that legislation, development applications for projects with 10 or fewer dwelling units have been exempted.

Citing two projects with 12 units apiece in Windsor where he is based, Vilardi believes there is a case to be made for increasing the exemption limit.

Allowing homes to be built faster is something the association is supportive of, as long as projects meet the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and the process complies with the Architects Act, he says.

Since the OAA regulates the profession in the best interest of the public, and that interest is served by getting affordable homes to the market quicker through a shorter municipal review process, the association would support an increase.

“In fact, we (the OAA) have spoken generally about urban intensification, streamlining the approval process, supporting missing middle development, etc. All of this would point to support for such a position.”

Bill 23 also established a new timeline for site plan approval, and although the length of time mandated was doubled, the legislation also introduced a fee rebate program wherein municipalities would have to refund project proponents if site plan approval is not granted within the allotted timelines, he says.

However, the OAA is hearing anecdotal reports from some of its members that the site plan approval has actually deteriorated under Bill 23. Based on accounts, it appears the site plan approval process may have gotten worse in the wake of Bill 23.

Municipalities are waiting on “starting the clock” on the approval process for various reasons, including the new requirement for pre-consultation meetings.

However, he believes the pre-consultation process has merit as it allows municipalities and developers to sort out potential issues of conflict. Even before Bill 23 was enacted, pre-consultation meetings were required in municipalities such as Windsor, he points out.

Continuing to advocate for housing affordability through various submissions to the government is and will be a key OAA objective, says Vilardi.