Community Consultation in the Planning Process

Development Permit Application

This section illustrates opportunities for consultation during a development permit application. The section includes considerations for all players, although their level of involvement will vary throughout this process. This work is outlined in three stages: research, consultation and assessment.

Example: A developer applies for a permit to develop three duplex units as infill in an established neighbourhood.

EVALUATION AND REFINEMENT
Key Question	Developer Can we obtain a development permit?	Community Can we support the application for the development permit?	Planning and Development Will we approve the application for the permit?
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Goals	Integrate civic requirements and suggested improvements wherever possible so that an application can be submitted.	Understand the proposal and determine the changes, if any, required to meet community needs.	Provide clear information to the applicant, other departments and community members (on request) so that the process flows smoothly.
Steps	Meet with the development officer to develop plans. Research and respond to all the suggestions received from Planning and Development.	Review the application. Investigate the zoning and development rules for the area in question. Request a CPTED assessment of the development (see p. 96). Keep in touch with the developer and planners.	Prior to application, provide information and assistance about application requirements. Circulate the application to applicable departments.
Tools	Develop options for consideration. Anticipate any concerns from City departments. Submit the application. .		Provide the developer and community members with information and advice regarding permitted and discretionary uses under the applicable zoning.
Tools	Edmonton Zoning Bylaw (www.edmonton.ca)
CONSULTATION
Goals	With the community, jointly execute a consultation strategy. Inform the community about what can and cannot be done.	Based on informed feedback from residents, inform the developer about the community’s position and where compromise might be possible.	Verify that the required consultation methods have been employed (only required for overlays at this stage).
Steps	Inform the community about the plan, receive feedback and address concerns. Demonstrate familiarity with the site and its context, including the proposed development and other uses in the area. Show how the proposal helps achieve the intent and expectations of any approved policies such as an Area Redevelopment Plan or a Community Plan. Demonstrate how the proposal will impact the neighbours and community. Present options, if possible.	Take the lead with the Planning and Development Department and/or the developer to hold a public meeting and/or implement other participatory strategies. Ensure that all interested community members have opportunity to provide informed responses to the proposal. Be sure the subcommittee understands the proposal and general development requirements for the area.	Inform any inquirer what the developer can and cannot do within the zoning. Respond to technical questions and provide information about planning parameters, when requested. If any variance or discretionary use is involved, mail a notice to surrounding property owners.
Tools	Assessing the impact of a development, p. 64. Maximizing participation, p. 18. Receiving and assessing a notice of development, p. 67.
Goals	Integrate feedback and obtain approval for a thorough application.	Based on clear direction from the residents, determine if the community can now support the application.	Accurately and fairly assess whether the application complies with zoning regulations and should be approved.
Steps	Based on feedback, make final changes. Submit the application.	Ask the department to answer any other questions you might have. Clearly articulate the terms and nature of community support to the developer and Planning and Development.	Assess and evaluate any responses from the community. For discretionary uses only, take into account the suitability of surrounding uses, compatibility with the block, identified concerns and conformance with existing statutory plans (e.g., ASP, ARP, NSP). Decide on application.
Tools	Checklist of development considerations, p. 66.

TOOLS FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Tool: Assessing development impact

These elements form a checklist as you review the proposal.¹⁵

Relationship to existing uses, surrounding buildings and streetscape?

Building appearance
Building materials
Impact on Neighbourhood (privacy, light, etc.)
Mature vegetation
Parking

Compatibility: Fit into surroundings?

Height and bulk
Building materials
Relationship to neighbour
Mature vegetation and landscaping
Parking

Safety: Apply CPTED principles (see p. 96)

Open and visible space
No lurking or hiding areas
Adequate lighting and definition of space
Controlled access

Site coverage (percentage of lot area covered by buildings) for most residences:

Height & bulk of house 28%
Accessory buildings (all structures) 12%
Total site coverage 40%
House and attached garage 40%

Height

No higher than 10m (32.8 ft.) nor 2 1/2 storeys for single-detached, semi-detached and rowhousing zones.

No higher than 8.6 m (28.2 ft.) for Mature Neighbourhood Overlay areas.

Tool: Checklist for development considerations (detailed)

Check the proposal and research the following:

Zoning and plans

What is the zoning for the proposed development site?
Is there a plan for the area, and does the proposed development fit the plan?
Would the development be a permitted or discretionary use?
Do any overlays apply to the neighbourhood, such as the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay (see p. 83)?
Does the proposed development meet conditions of the Zoning Bylaw?
Check for any objections raised by City departments regarding the proposed use.
Do any other plans apply?

Appearance

Photograph the existing site and surroundings. Obtain site diagrams and artist’s renditions for the proposed development and compare these with the existing site.
What are the specific changes to the site’s appearance?
Would minor adjustments to the exterior, landscaping, etc. make the development fit better with the neighbourhood? If so, those might be suggested as possible conditions.
What development has historically occurred in the area? On the site?
Has the area always been single-family homes, or have higher densities been allowed?

Other perspectives

What is the community league’s position?
What do the neighbours think?
What do other community members, schools, shopkeepers and/or business owners think?
What changes should be made to support CPTED principles (see p. 96)?

Precedent

What development has historically occurred in the area? On the site?
Has the area always contained only single-family homes, or have higher densities been allowed?
Has similar development occurred in comparable neighbourhoods? What were the effects on the community?
Have other similar proposals been accepted? What variances were granted? These will act as a baseline for the Development Officer in determining what may or may not be allowed.

Studies

Review any relevant studies (traffic, CPTED assessment, environmental assessment, sun/shadow, soil stability).

Tool: Receiving and assessing a Notice of Development

Edmonton case study: Stalled multi-family development proposal

A prime scenic property, zoned for institutional use, becomes available because an expanding non-profit organization needs to sell the land. To realize the full value of the once-considered useless land, the organization chooses to have it rezoned to multi-family residential. A developer is found to buy the property.

Developer	Planning and Development	Community League	Unofficial Community Committee #1	Unofficial Community Committee #2
Keen to develop multifamily dwellings, the developer approaches the community league to consult on a new building.	Planning and Development was involved throughout the process.	The community league does not feel equipped to respond. Largely a program-oriented league, it has no interest in planning or political matters.	Instead, a committee of community members interested in the proposed development forms to meet with the developer.	Discovering the project late in the process, these community members are deeply opposed.

Consultation

Initially, most in the community want the land returned to parkland. Weighing the issues, committee #1 decides the residential concept is preferable to other potential developments under the existing zoning, which permits such uses as group homes. While not entirely happy with the proposal, the committee feels it is the best they can get. Committee and developer negotiate for what they feel is the best possible compromise.

After the committee’s work is done and the project announced, other community members become aware of the proposal and vigorously oppose it. A huge upswell of opposition is organized in the neighbourhood. Specifically, upset community members (Group #2) disagree with the first committee’s judgment about the necessity of compromise, believing there were other options. Group #2 asks the community to vote on various options, giving the impression the vote will be taken into account by decision-makers.

Conclusion

The fragmented process left its mark:

A deeply divided community
Huge political and ongoing legal battles
Ostracized volunteers
An attack on the community league executive and
A severely delayed project (by three or four years)

Learning

All parties must make every effort to keep the ENTIRE community involved in consultation and negotiation. Maximizing participation may feel tedious, but it pays off. Err on the side of too much rather than too little. Effective community league representation and accountability is especially important for larger developments. Committees should be properly empowered and should report back to the larger community on a regular basis, so as to include the broader community in the process.

In difficult situations, such as this, the City may develop an expanded consultation process that might include extra public meetings, department-facilitated negotiations, hiring an outside facilitator, and giving information about civic policies.

Consultation efforts should aim for the best solutions for all and not the least objectionable compromise. This may seem a subtle distinction, but all parties need to be sure that the project is the best possible scenario. Defending a negative worst-case solution is neither easy nor pleasant for anyone.

Scenario: Three points of view on a commercial development

A developer wants to build a restaurant, probably a franchise such as Tim Hortons, on a busy road next to a major sports facility. Zoned CB-1, the lot was formerly a car wash, and before that a service station. The lot is intended for low intensity commercial, office and service uses, the sort often located along arterial roadways that border residential areas.

Developer	Planning and Development	Community League
The developer has completed all of the environmental reclamation work and has reviewed the zoning. Having done her homework, she is ready to approach the community about her plans.	The Development Officer explains the option of changing the zoning to a Direct Control zone. He clarifies the process and asks good questions about traffic in a drive-through coffee shop. He suggests the developer build in a way that minimizes the impacts of sound, garbage, storage, etc., on adjacent neighbours.	This inner city community is saturated with liquor stores, adult video stores and pawnshops. Residents are worried about the possibility of another unwanted use on this vacant parcel of land. Community members are unhappy with the CB-1 zoning as they know from experience that if the business originally intended for the lot does not thrive, other permitted but unwanted uses could move in. Under a CB-1 zoning, the community could not oppose those uses.

Consultation

Before submitting an application, the developer consults with the community by meeting with the community league. She hears their concerns about the use and the current zoning.

The community works with the developer and asks that she consider very site-specific controls. These controls would specify that the site could only be developed for a commercial storefront and that it could never be a liquor store, adult video store, etc. The developer agrees to this site-specific DC zoning and assumes the expense and additional time associated with a public hearing before Council.

Conclusion

Once all three parties agree with the proposal, the developer hand-delivers letters to all adjacent neighbours. When she presents the proposal at Council, the community expresses its support. Council approves the rezoning.

The community is very happy as the lot has been vacant for years and this new business will positively contribute to the community. Both the league and the developer look forward to seeing their local Timmy’s open its doors.