In Milton the Town Council delegates site plan approvals to the chief planner. In Oakville large developments adjacent to residential communities are automatically reviewed by a site plan committee that meets publically.
Milton Council last summer voted against forming such a committee. Should Milton rethink that approach and open site plan applications to a public review like Oakville?
To clarify, in Ontario the public does not really have the ability to oppose land use. As I go through people’s concerns about the proposed No-Frills on Scott Blvd and Derry Rd, I can’t help but think that many of those concerns can be mitigated if people had an opportunity to raise their concerns about the site plan, instead of trusting town staff to understand their issues without having even an opportunity to present them.
Specifically, No-Frills would still happen because that would not up for a public debate. However, in Oakville this committee deals with road widening, access to a development, loading and parking facilities, accessibility for pedestrians and the disabled, lighting, grading and landscaping, and garbage facilities. That level of input is still better than no input at all.
There are things Oakville can learn from Milton. In this case, in my opinion, Oakville’s approach to transparency is better than Milton’s approach of shutting the public out. I am not questioning the ability of town planners. I do think that people who live adjacent to proposed developments should have some say in how their community develops. Simple issues like loading, parking and garbage facilities, landscaping, lighting and accessibility makes a huge difference for people adjacent to large developments.
One more thing: those responding ‘no’, I am curious to know why not.
yes, i agree 100% (though i may be biased here :))
Hi Zeeshan,
Just to clarify as I thought I had made it clear in my story.
The public DOES have input on land use, including at statutory public meetings, especially at four major points:
1) when an official plan is developed (e.g. Sustainable Halton’s ROPA 37 outlining new growth areas in Milton to 2031, passed last June). Official Plan generally outlines larger vision and is guiding document.
2) when a secondary plan for a specific area is subsequently developed (e.g. for the 50,000-strong residential area south of Louis St. Laurent to Britanna, between Tremaine and James Snow being planned for right now) and incorporated into the Official Plan.
3) when zoning for a specific site is changed to allow for the proposed land use (sets out specific land uses allowable).
4) After all three stages above, residents can appeal council’s decisions to the OMB.
The situation with No Frills is that the rezoning took place in 2008, and official and secondary plans much earlier, and is now an as-of-right development in terms of land use.
@Tim,
Thanks for the comment.
I get that (which is why I took a few days to post this). The thing is that when Boyne Survey is done, those residents won’t be there to give input.
The zoning for this site was changed in 2008 when this area was mostly empty. Until four months ago the plan was to go with multi-unit buildings that were mostly leased out. There has to be a step 5 where though residents may not debate already-approved land use, they should be able to give feedback on the proposed site plan. That is the step that’s missing in Milton.
Take the First Capital plaza on Bronte / Derry. My first input would’ve been to either eliminate the left turn from Derry onto the plaza or make an extra lane for the turn. Right now that turn blocks traffic going straight, making congestion even worse than it is. But the site plan was never open to a public discussion.
Zeeshan Hamid.
Not quite true but you’re on right track.
The revised site plan has not yet been received by the Town.
Once received, the Town – as pointed out by Coun. Best – will do what the Province requires it to do, send out notice of the revised site plan to owners of properties within 120 metres of the site.
Members of the public can provide comments to the Town on the site plan by visiting the planning department, asking to see the revised site plan and giving an opinion. Or they can ask their councillor to ask staff to bring forward the site plan at a council committee meeting.
So, despite the fact such a site plan committee doesn’t exist in Milton, the public does have opportunities to comment on this No Frills development site plan if it chooses to do so.
Regarding the other point about rezoning the site when people weren’t living there, that is a common occurrence in municipal planning in Ontario. For example, the Official Plan for where you live was finalized in 1997 (including the probably poor decision to even put development west of the raised tracks but it’s attractive development lands out there) after more than a decade of planning at Regional and Town level for expansion of Milton until 2021. Secondary Plan for that Sherwood Survey was finished about a half decade later. Some years later, Town did retail study for Milton which recommended people in west end have place to buy groceries. Now, since the then owner of the property Mattamy, decided to ask for the rezoning of that site, Town can’t refuse to address it because Mattamy hasn’t finished its residential development. One, because Mattamy could appeal after couple months to OMB stating Town has refused to give a decision on its rezoning application. Two, because people were moving in and would have needed some place to shop. You live there now, and lots of people have complained there’s no commercial west of railroad tracks. So, if Town refused in 2008, area could be years away from any retail.
So, tough nut to crack on this one. Complex issue, with no easy answers (though you’ll learn quickly most constituents prefer to hear an easy answer – i.e. “Town/Province should get their heads out of their a**” :-))
@Tim,
:). I actually completely agree with the process so far, except that the Town did reject grocery store at Bronte / Derry (I know, I know, First Capital went to OMB and all). In 2008 it’d have been better to zone a grocery store there instead. Either way, that’s all water under the bridge.
I was educated on the process by the Town staff last month. From a practical point of view, sending notices to homes within 120m and giving them a few short days in which they have to proactively educate themselves and raise concerns isn’t practical. As you likely know yourself, in most cases this requires hauling their behinds to the Townhall during business hours, a task fairly daunting for Milton’s commuting population. These plans are not published online until they are about to go for approval.
In theory what other Milton does isn’t much different from what Oakville does, but in practice Oakville has another layer that makes public input easier. That does seem bad for developers, but I actually do not see much negatives for residents.
Zeeshan.
@Tim,
One more thing: back to the First Capital Plaza. I am impacted by the left-turn design, as are many of my neighbours who drive on Derry. However, most of us weren’t within 120m. In my case I did not learn about the site plan until the morning of the meeting (agendas are published four days before the meeting but I did not see it until the day of). That wasn’t enough time to absorb or discuss anything.
Well, if you’re arguing for more transparency and allowance for public input into both the planning and development process as well as government operations in both Ontario and at local municipal level, then you won’t find a newspaperman who will disagree.
Government staff can sometimes feel public input is an annoyance, mostly because, unfortunately, so much of it is unexamined knee-jerk spouting off (e.g. ‘tall buildings equal crime’, ‘no public housing here, but don’t raise minimum wage, and I don’t want to pay for transit to bring workers here, and darn it, why are prices so high at Loblaws’)
However, in my opinion, governments should realize there is a great opportunity not only for public process to exist so that the public can provide input to the government, but also for experienced government officials to educate the public on why things are the way they are. Unfortunately, our education system does a pitiful job of effectively getting people to understand even the basics of how our political system operates, and since 85% don’t give a darn about politics (going from a 2004 New Yorker-published study), public input sessions is best way for them to learn and then provide feedback. However, it takes time, expensive time (consultants, staff have to be present).
@Tim,
Yayy, we agree!
A good workaround is to use more online resources. There is no reason why all public input has to be given in person.
I had to personally e-mail and ask what the procedure was to learn, that could be on the website. I had to take a few hours off work last year and go to the Townhall to see the list of expenses filed by candidates in the 2006 election. Many municipalities put that info online.
Majority of public input will always be an uneducated knee-jerk reaction. But that’s the price you have to pay to get to the handful of people who have genuine concerns and are at least trying to educate themselves.
In a perfect world your councillor will always be accessible and available. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world (and honestly, I do not like the idea of always going through a proxy, but I would so love to actually have an email response from a certain Ward 1 councillor (since the new ward 8 was part of the old Ward 1).
I make myself vulnerable by putting my thoughts on my blog for everyone to see and comment on. That’s not a bad thing. So I am wrong from time to time (some would say most of the time :)), big deal.
Zeeshan.