City Planning: A Transparent Process PART II

Part II of II: This post concludes a review of the development application process, and common myths and misconceptions surrounding the process. Part I can be found here.


CITY PLANNING: EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS

credit: AMBRO

There tends to be an air of wariness amongst those who have been misinformed or only partially informed of the approval procedures for local development. Indeed, if you yourself are not a landowner who has gone through the application process, there may not be much cause for you to have previously learned a lot of detailed information about the procedures. As you can see from the stages outlined in Part I, a lot of work and professional review go into the city planning process, along with care, attention, and respect for the existing development policies.

I’d like to debunk this myth that we’re dealing with the ‘wild west’ of planning. Where do these misconceptions spring from? Well, ironically it may be due to the fact that our staff perform so efficiently. Many poorly-prepared or unrealistic proposals are dropped early in the process, thanks to the diligent review process implemented by staff, so the public (and the committee itself) only see a small percentage of the total proposals submitted.

Specific cases can be cited as great examples from which to learn. A recent proposal to build a 9-storey building in Wellington West was dropped in the pre-consult stage when the developers were informed that they could, by law, go ahead with the application--provided they applied for an Official Plan and zoning amendment, as the Wellington West CDP has limited the height of new builds to 6 storeys. This particular developer dropped the proposal and walked away from the project entirely, uninterested in pursuing a height increase within a neighbourhood that has doggedly defended the limits of its plan. Consequently, this plan never even reached the stage of formal application, which means it was done and over with before the public would ever have  been introduced to it.

credit: ddpavumba

Another case occurred in Kanata, at #2 The Parkway: a landowner sought approval for a 16-storey build on the location of a small postal station with institutional zoning. Citizens of the Kanata area rose up in opposition to the proposal, objecting to the possibility of ‘spot re-zoning’—in fact, the group even began a website and campaign. What the group failed to recognize is that every property owner in Ontario has the right to make an application to rezone their property, so the City couldn’t halt the application...but this doesn’t mean that every application is approved by any means. Indeed, the Planning Committee does not promote spot re-zoning. The developer’s formal application was recommended for rejection by the urban planner, and consequently, the developer has returned to the drawing board, preparing a new proposal that meets the existing policies more effectively. While we are always welcoming of public feedback, a lot of panic and effort was put into the anti-development campaign that, in the end, was not necessary.

DEVELOPING OUR TRUST IN CITY STAFF

A lot of furor could have been avoided in the Kanata case with better awareness of planning procedure, and a touch more faith in our city staff's adherence to policy. Well-intentioned individuals will sometimes cry foul play on the planning procedure, frightened that some sort of secret deal is happening at the pre-consultation level. I assure you, that is not the case, nor the point of the pre-consultation stage. Much like when applying for a passport, an individual is provided with a checklist of forms to fill and documents to bring; in the same factual manner, the developer is simply notified at pre-consult of what he will need to prepare in order to be considered. 

credit: Stuart Miles

And the goal of city staff, as well as the Planning Committee, is to provide an objective process for all involved. This means that we do not jettison our policies and professionalism in the face of community opposition, nor in the face of demands by developers. The Planning Act and the Official Plan, as well as relevant City of Ottawa policies, are the pillars of the decision making process. Staff work diligently at their jobs, despite some unjustified skepticism by certain members of the community and community associations, to maintain an objective and policy-based perspective on the applications being received.

Anyone can apply to rezone their property; and anyone can forge ahead with an application, despite recommended rejection, if they feel that they can justify why their divergence from a collective’s vision is more important, valid, or appropriate than what has been established. But this doesn’t mean that city staff and committee members will bend to the whim and whine of each developer or community group. To do so would be chaos. In order to see Ottawa blossom to its full potential, I would advise builders to stop attempting to change the rules with every application, and focus on a better product. And Ottawans, I urge you to develop your awareness of city policies and procedures so that the fear mongers cannot rile you with false stories of shady dealings.

I hope that this post has helped to clarify our process, and to shed some light on the hard work of your urban planners. A city with well-informed citizens will always find itself progressing in a way that is more effective and satisfactory for all involved stakeholders.

To return to Part I of CITY PLANNING: A TRANSPARENT PROCESS, click here. 

-Peter