2009-03-09_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, March 09, 2009
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
5:00 p.m. Council Chamber Open to the Public
1. Expediting Saint John's Planning and Development Process
2. Urban Design in Saint John
3. South End Playground
4. Shamrock Park Master Plan
City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Le lundi 9 mars 2009
Comite plenier
1. Ouverture de la seance
Seance publique dans la salle du consed — 17 h
1. Acceleration du processus par le Service de la planification et du
developpement de Saint John
2. Planification urbaine a Saint John
3. Terrain de jeux du quartier sud
4. Plan d'amenagement urbain du parc Shamrock
REPOR'r 'ro COMMON; COUNCIL
March 4, 2009
His Worship Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subiect
Expediting Planning and Develol2ment Process
Michael Ircha PhD was engaged to review the city's planning procedures
and to identify steps to expedite its planning and development process.
Attached is his final report and recommendations.
The recommendations are broad in scope and anticipate that, if adopted,
actions would be taken by the PAC, Council, City Staff and Developers to
both streamline and improve the development approval process.
Recommendation
That Common Council refer the report from M. Ircha PhD, namely,
'Expediting Saint John's Planning and Development Process' to each of the
City MaObe er and the Planni r'"dvisory Committee for a report on specific
actions taken in respo�e to the recommendations.
Terrence L. Totten
City Manager
2
r-1111
'r he city of' Saint John
Executive Summary
Expediting Saint John's
Planning and Development Process
Michael C. Ircha, PhD, MCIP, RPP, P.Eng.
Honorary Research Professor
University of New Brunswick
March 2009
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process
Executive Summary
The City of Saint John's planning procedure was reviewed to identify steps to
expedite its planning and development process. This review was mandated
by The City of Saint John to consider:
• ensuring meaningful public involvement in the planning process,
• planning best practices including:
- appropriate staff expertise and experience,
- composition, qualifications and terms of PAC membership,
- land use planning best practices,
- PAC processes and procedures,
- staff, PAC and Council planning process interaction,
- City Manager and City Administration role in planning,
This review involved in -depth interviews with many key stakeholders in Saint
John's planning and development community. In general, all stakeholders
spoke of a common concern: that the City's current planning processes and
procedures need to be modified to expedite decision - making. In addition, this
review considered relevant literature, planning procedures in other
municipalities, and interviews with planners in other jurisdictions.
Planning evolved as a means of regulating and controlling the use of land in
support of rational urban development. The legislative and legal basis for
planning includes a formal Municipal Plan establishing the locations of
differing land uses. The Plan's general land use planning provisions are
implemented by site - specific Zoning By -laws, which regulates land use by
classification (residential, commercial, industrial and so forth).
Land use planning decisions must reflect the principles of natural justice.
This means the applicant must receive a copy of all written advice (i.e. staff
reports), is present during all verbal presentations and discussion (by staff,
PAC and Council) and has a copy of the written decision including the
reasons for it.
There was considerable consistency among the stakeholders interviewed that
change was essential if Saint John is to handle the anticipated increase in the
number and complexity of planning applications. The common concerns
raised by stakeholders include:
4
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 2
• the City's outdated Municipal Plan,
• overworked Planning and Development staff,
• strict interpretations by Engineering, Building Inspection and
Heritage Planning, and
• inefficient PAC and Council procedures for handling planning
applications.
The greatest concern about the City's antiquated Municipal Plan is that it is
not considered "relevant" to current projects. Hence, developers seek to
quickly amend the Plan and Zoning for their projects. This leads PAC and
Council to make "ad hoc" and, at times, inconsistent planning decisions.
All interviewed stakeholders praised Planning and Development staff for their
support and efficiency in handling various development proposals. At the
same time, however, there was concern from developers about barriers and
non - supportive attitudes among Engineering, Building Inspection and
Heritage Planning staff.
Many stakeholders pointed to a dysfunctional relationship between PAC and
planning staff. Apparently from the community's perspective, PAC has little
regard for the City's planners, their reports and analyses, and their
recommendations. The Chair reads out the planning staff's report on each
case as though it was the PAC's. Staff is rarely questioned in public about the
application and their recommendations. Planning staff seems to have little
input on terms and conditions that PAC may impose should the Committee
wish to approve an application that staff recommended for denial.
Planning should not be an adversarial process between PAC and staff. Rather
it should be complementary - seeking the best inputs from both groups
(PAC's community experience coupled with professional advice) to achieve
quality development for the City. There is a need for improved
communication and trust building between PAC and planning staff.
All stakeholders called for greater efficiency in dealing with public
presentations at PAC and Common Council. Stakeholders recounted "horror
stories" about overly lengthy PAC and Council meetings where other crucial
business was held up by extensive and, often - irrelevant presentations
bordering on filibustering. When a time limit on PAC and Council
presentations was suggested, all stakeholders believed this needed to be done.
5
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 3
As one community development stakeholder emphatically stated: "please
limit to 5 minutes!"
Many stakeholders believed the public would abide by stricter presentation
rules provided they know about them in advance and the rules are applied
uniformly and consistently.
Some stakeholders were concerned that PAC spends inordinate time seeking
compromises in complex and controversial planning applications. As one
stakeholder put it, "PAC has too much respect for dissenting opinions."
Although mediation and conciliation is a noble cause, it is not PAC's mandate
to seek an acceptable compromise. PAC's role is to recommend on the best
use of land, not seek a compromise that may lead to a lower quality
development.
Saint John's Planning and Development Department is understaffed. The
result is an overworked planning staff struggling to accommodate the City's
growing development needs.
[Note: The executive summary contains a selection of many
recommendations included in the main report].
Recommendation 1:
Additional staff is required for Planning and Development to enable it to
meet Common Council's goals of updating the Municipal Plan and
Zoning By -law. A minimum of two professional planners, a planning
technician and additional front office support is required.
A major part of Planning and Development's work overload comes from
PAC's two -week meeting schedule. Most other New Brunswick PACs
operate on a one -month cycle. A two -week schedule places planning staff on
a virtual treadmill, leaving no time to think about and suggest improvements
to developers regarding their applications. Changing PAC to a monthly
schedule means meetings must be handled more efficiently. This review
recommends several steps for achieving this.
r
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 4
Recommendation 3:
The Planning Advisory Committee should meet on a monthly basis.
Steps need to be taken to improve the efficiency of handling planning
applications at PAC meetings to permit setting monthly meetings.
Saint John's planning amendment application forms seek basic information,
but additional input should be obtained from applicants to ensure planners,
other municipal staff, PAC, and Common Council understand the full intent
of the application. Many municipalities have web sites for downloading
application forms or for completing and submitting them on -line. Improving
customer service in Planning and Development should include enhancements
to their web pages to provide citizens and developers with easy electronic
access to relevant bilingual planning information and documentation.
Incomplete applications should not be processed. The City has been too
flexible in the past in accepting partially completed applications with the
requirement for staff follow up to obtain additional information. The
development officer should review the application for completeness. The
application should be deemed incomplete until the development officer signs
off on it.
Recommendation 6:
Planning staff should review planning and development application
forms available from other municipalities to develop appropriate
modifications for updating the City's planning application forms.
Recommendation 7:
Incomplete planning applications should not be processed. The current
planning application form should be amended to allow development
officers to sign their approval of complete applications prior to review
and evaluation.
The costs of providing enhanced review and evaluation service to planning
and development applications should be recovered from the fees charged to
the applicant. Many municipalities assess a variable fee based on the
complexity of the proposal and the amount of review and evaluation time
required. Alternatively, other municipalities maintain lower fees to encourage
development.
rA
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 5
Recommendation 8:
The City Manager in conjunction with Planning and Development should
review planning application fees to determine whether or not a variable
fee structure is appropriate for complex and major development
projects.
Many stakeholders spoke of the need for a regular inter - departmental
planning review committee meeting to evaluate and provide input for all
planning applications. With the current two -week PAC meeting schedule,
such meetings are next to impossible to convene. Moving to monthly PAC
meetings permits regular monthly inter - departmental planning review
committee meetings to be convened and facilitated by planning staff.
Recommendation 9:
Following the introduction of monthly PAC meetings, Planning and
Development should convene and facilitate regular monthly inter-
departmental planning review committee meetings to evaluate all
planning applications.
Recommendation 10:
The City Manager should ensure relevant municipal departments
provide representation to the inter - departmental planning review
committee.
An essential contribution by other municipal senior staff in Engineering and
Leisure Services is attendance at monthly PAC meetings. They can provide
technical advice and respond to PAC's questions. In their absence, the onus
is placed on planning staff to respond to technical questions. At times, these
questions are beyond the technical competence of the planners.
Recommendation 13:
Appropriate senior staff person from Engineering and Leisure Services
should attend the monthly PAC meetings as a Committee resource.
N
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 6
Most New Brunswick PACs have council members appointed to serve on the
committee. Appointing elected councilors to planning advisory bodies is also
common in other provinces.
An important benefit in having several councilors on PAC is that the public
perceives that the presentations they make at PAC are being heard by
councilors. Hence, they do not feel compelled to repeat their presentation at
Common Council. In turn, fewer public presentations expedite Council's
handling of planning matters at their meetings.
Almost all stakeholders supported the appointment of councilors to the PAC
to improve the communication and relationship between the two bodies.
Recommendation 19:
Common Council should appoint up to four councilors to PAC as
vacancies occur over time.
PAC meetings held in the Council Chambers create an intimidating setting for
ordinary citizens and may discourage open dialogue on planning matters.
Several stakeholders suggested PAC meet in an informal boardroom or
committee room where everyone sits at the same level.
Recommendation 22:
To encourage more open public participation in the planning process,
PAC should relocate their meetings from the Council Chambers to a
more informal committee room or boardroom.
PAC has a practice of meeting for a light meal prior to their scheduled
meeting. At this informal setting, they review the meeting agenda and pose
questions to staff about the items to be dealt with at the public session.
Having a meal prior to the regular meeting reflects the reality of a larger city
where commuting time prevents members from traveling home after work
and returning for the meeting. However, the practice of discussing agenda
items in this private session with planning staff is cause for considerable
concern.
p
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 7
PAC is a quasi-judicial tribunal and should only be discussing applications in
public. Applicants should be apprised of all of PAC's oral and written
discussion on their cases. Meeting privately to discuss applications does
injustice to an open and transparent process and contravenes the principles of
natural justice.
Recommendation 23:
PAC should not be discussing planning matters or applications at the
informal dinner prior to the public session. Concerns and questions for
planning staff about applications and other items on the agenda should
raised in public.
The public participation process held by the PAC is not the statutory hearing
mandated by the Community Planning Act — the one held by Common
Council is the required one. This means that the PAC can implement
discipline on presentations being made at their meetings by:
• limiting speakers to 5 minutes or less,
• seeking a spokesperson or two to speak on behalf of a larger
delegation, within a limited time period,
• restricting the number of speakers in a given delegation,
• constraining the discussion on a given application by a delegation of
speakers to a set time, say one hour or less,
• curbing the repetition of the same argument by multiple presenters,
and
• confining the discussion to issues relevant to land use, by ruling out
of order irrelevant arguments.
These presentation rules should be published in advance and reiterated in the
Chair's introduction at the beginning of the meeting. The Chair then needs to
enforce these restrictions consistently and fairly.
There are many occasions when a Chair has to politely steer presenters away
from irrelevant issues. PAC is expected to only consider land use planning
issues, not potential users nor the economic benefits or costs of development,
including property taxes.
Of
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 8
Recommendation 30:
PAC should amend their "Rules of Procedure" to incorporate reasonable
time limits on applicant and public presentations to the Committee. In
addition, the Chair should enforce reasonable limits on repetition and
irrelevant issues.
Taking a recess during the public session implies a "break" in the
proceedings, not an "in- camera" private PAC discussion of the matter being
debated. Despite this, PAC chooses to go into such private sessions to discuss
controversial planning applications. This is contrary to the principles of
natural justice. As discussed previously, the applicant is entitled to know how
PAC reaches its decision and the factors they considered.
Provincial policy states that all deliberations on a planning application must
be in public. As a Council appointed committee PAC should be bound to the
same rules as Common Council on meeting in a private or closed session.
Common Council can only hold closed sessions in conformance with the
provisions of the New Brunswick Municipalities Act.
Recommendation 32:
PAC should amend its "Rules of Procedures" to define the specific
matters that allow the Committee to meet in closed "in- camera" session.
Such matters include receiving legal opinion from the City Solicitor and
personnel issues. All other PAC business must be conducted in open,
public session.
Many stakeholders raised concerns that PAC is setting terms and conditions
to planning application approvals without sufficient input from planning staff.
Recommendation 34:
PAC should not set terms and conditions for approved planning
applications without seeking planning advice at the meeting.
A concern raised by many stakeholders is PAC's current requirement that if
applicants are not present at the meeting, their applications are tabled until
they are available. Although such a step is admirable from a "fairness"
perspective, it is unnecessary. There is no legislation forcing applicants to
W
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 9
attend PAC or Council meetings dealing with their application. Although
attendance is advisable, it is the applicant's choice whether or not to attend.
Recommendation 35:
PAC should handle all applications on their agenda whether or not
applicants are present at the meeting.
Saint John Common Council's meeting procedures are well defined, with
presentations limited to 15 minutes, and submissions being provided four
days prior to the Council meeting. However, stakeholders pointed out that
these constraints are rarely enforced. Common Council should consider
limiting the presentation time even further. Many other municipalities keep
presentations to five minutes.
Recommendation 37:
Common Council should enforce its current 15- minute time limit for
presentations to Council and consider reducing the presentation time to
5- minutes.
Increasingly, the public is seeking information about the City and planning
matters on -line. Thus, it is important for the City to improve its web site to
enhance community access. A key feature on many municipal web sites is a
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. Placing planning FAQs on the
City's web site could reduce the number of calls and visits by citizens seeking
basic planning information.
Recommendation 40:
Planning and Development, in cooperation with other municipal
departments, should upgrade their on -line web presence to provide a
FAQ page and downloadable planning documentation in a bilingual
format.
The next stage in developing an electronic gateway is to develop an
interactive capacity for planning matters. Planning and Development should
be on the forefront in developing on -line interactive public participation tools
for major and complex planning proposals. This step will enhance citizen
12
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 10
engagement and understanding, which will, in turn, lead to expedited PAC
and Common Council deliberations on planning matters.
Recommendation 41:
Planning and Development should develop an on -line interactive public
participation process to encourage a bilingual community dialogue and
discussion on major and complex planning proposals.
Many stakeholders suggested that Planning and Development and other
relevant departments should prepare comprehensive written policy and
procedures manuals and design guidelines to assist in land development
projects. Such manuals and guidelines should include new and enhanced
development standards.
Recommendation 42:
Planning and Development, Engineering and other related departments
should develop and publish appropriate bilingual policy and procedures
manuals and design guidelines to assist and guide the development
industry.
Many of the steps suggested and recommended in this review require
education and training for staff, PAC and councilors. These sessions should
include discussion on the PAC's mandate, role, planning principles, and the
City's planning legislation and policies. The Province's Community Planning
Section provides education and training sessions for district planning
commissions. It would be appropriate for them to arrange for similar, suitable
sessions for members of all PACs.
Recommendation 43:
The City of Saint John should encourage the Provincial Government
through its Community Planning Section to provide education and
training opportunities for PAC members on a regular basis.
Saint John has specific educational needs for PAC members, Council and
municipal staff on planning policy, procedures and projects. Some of the
education may be offered on an informal basis to PAC and Council on
13
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 11
evolving provincial policy, recent Assessment and Planning Appeal Board
decisions, and relevant material from current planning literature.
Recommendation 44:
Planning and Development should provide orientation sessions for newly
appointed PAC members as well as offering educational sessions for
PAC, Council, and other inter - departmental staff on relevant planning
matters.
This review identified problems within Saint John's planning process. Land
use planning and development is effective but requires modification and
updating to expedite planning applications through the Department, PAC and
Common Council.
Stakeholders raised many concerns about the City's planning processes and
procedures. The most significant issue is the time PAC and Common Council
spent on planning applications. Steps are proposed in this review to expedite
planning applications without sacrificing valued public input. These steps
include:
• setting reasonable time limits for presentations by the applicant,
public and delegations,
• limiting the repetition of points previously raised by others, and
• focusing the discussion at PAC and Council on matters relevant to
land use planning.
Many recommendations involve procedural changes that are beyond Planning
and Development's jurisdiction such as making appropriate amendments to
PAC's "Rules of Procedure" and Common Council's Procedural By -law. The
only way to implement many of the recommended changes is for Council to
direct that they be made.
Recommendation 46:
Common Council should adopt this review and request written
comments and a suggested implementation plan from the City Manager,
PAC, and Planning and Development.
14
Expediting Saint John's
Planning and Development Process
Michael C. Ircha, PhD, MCIP, RPP, P.Eng.
Honorary Research Professor
University of New Brunswick
March 2009
15
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 2
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................. ............................... 4
2. PLANNING PROCESS ..................................................... ............................... 5
2.1 Planning in New Brunswick .............................................................................. ............................... 5
2.2 Natural Justice and Administrative Law .......................................................... ............................... 7
2.3 Planning Principles ............................................................................................ ............................... 9
3. PLANNING PROCESS COMPARISONS ....................... ............................... 10
3.1 Planning Application Procedures .................................................................... ............................... 10
3.2 Provincial Comparisons ................................................................................... ............................... 12
3.3 Presentations to PAC and Council .................................................................. ............................... 14
4. STAKEHOLDERS' PLANNING CONCERNS ................. ............................... 16
4.1 Cite of Saint John Municipal Plan .................................................................. ............................... 16
4.2 City Staff .......................................................................................................... ...............................
17
4.2.1 Engineering and Building Inspection .......................................................... ...............................
17
4.2.2 Planning and Development ......................................................................... ...............................
19
4.3 Planning Staff and PAC ................................................................................... ...............................
19
4.3.1 PAC Public Hearing ................................................................................... ...............................
22
4.3.2 PersonalitN'- based Discussion ...................................................................... ...............................
22
4.3.3 Seeking Compromise ................................................................................. ...............................
22
4.4 PAC and Common Council ............................................................................. ...............................
23
4.4.1 PAC Appointments .................................................................................... ...............................
24
4.4.2 Dealing with Change .................................................................................. ...............................
24
5. STREAMLINING THE PLANNING PROCESS ............... ............................... 25
5.1 Planning and Municipal Staff .......................................................................... ............................... 25
5.2 Planning Application Process .......................................................................... ...............................
26
5.2.1 PAC Meeting Schedule .............................................................................. ...............................
26
5.2.2 Pre - application Consultation ....................................................................... ...............................
27
5.2.3 Developers" Information Meetings .............................................................. ...............................
27
5.2.4 Planning Ads ocac .................................................................................... ...............................
28
5.2.5 Planning Application Forms ....................................................................... ...............................
29
5.2.6 Inter - Departmental Planning Review Committee ........................................ ...............................
30
5.2.7 Planners' PAC Reports ............................................................................... ...............................
31
5.2.8 Planning Application Notification Letter ..................................................... ...............................
32
Ire
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 3
5.3 PAC Process and Procedures .......................................................................... ...............................
33
5.3.1 PAC as a Quasi - Judicial Tribunal ............................................................... ...............................
33
5.3.2 Appointing Councilors to PAC ................................................................... ...............................
34
5.3.3 Saint John "s appointments procedure .......................................................... ...............................
35
5.3.4 PAC Meeting Location ............................................................................... ...............................
36
5.3.5 PAC`s Informal Dinner .............................................................................. ...............................
37
5.3.6 PAC Seating Arrangement .......................................................................... ...............................
37
5.3.7 PAC Meeting Procedure ............................................................................. ...............................
38
5.4 Common Council Meetings ............................................................................. ............................... 47
5.5 Community Participation ................................................................................ ............................... 49
5.5.1 Electronic gatewa ..................................................................................... ............................... 49
5.5.2 Interactive public participation .................................................................... ............................... 49
5.5.3 Polici- manuals and other publications ........................................................ ............................... 50
5.6 Cite Manager ................................................................................................... ............................... 50
5.7 Education and Training ..................................................................................... ..............................)1
6. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................. ............................... 53
7. IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................ ............................... 54
8. LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... ............................... 55
APPENDIX A - INTERVIEWS ............................................. ............................... 61
APPENDIX B - KINGSTON'S PLANNING APPLICATION FORMS ................. 63
APPENDIX C - SUGGESTED CHAIR'S INTRODUCTION . ............................... 65
ENDNOTES........................................................................ ............................... 66
17
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 4
1. Introduction
The City of Saint John's planning procedure was reviewed to identify steps to expedite its
planning and development process. The review's rationale was to ensure the City's
planning procedures reflect "best practices" to enable Saint John to handle an expected
increase in land development applications from proposed energy mega- projects and their
anticipated spin -offs. These best practices also seek to enhance opportunities for citizens
to engage in the planning process. This review considers the following planning and
development issues:
• Processing variances, subdivisions, zoning bylaw amendments, and municipal
plan amendments by the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and Common
Council.
• Formalizing the public notification process with respect to planning applications
to ensure there is meaningful public involvement in the planning process.
• Land use planning best practices including:
- appropriate staff expertise and experience,
- composition, qualifications and terms of PAC membership,
- PAC processes and procedures,
- staff, PAC and Council interaction during the planning process,
- role of the City Manager and City Administration in land use decisions
and the planning process,
- education, orientation and training for PAC and Council, and
- Common Council's process for considering planning applications to
ensure meaningful public input and facilitating effective decision making.
In some cases, it takes PAC more than two hours to deal with a planning application.
This has led to concerns about its ability to efficiently handle its current agenda and
anticipated larger fiiture agendas. Planning issues have also come to dominate Common
Council's agenda.
This review involved in -depth interviews with many key stakeholders in Saint John's
planning and development community. A list of the stakeholders interviewed is provided
in Appendix A. In general, all interviewed stakeholders spoke of a common concern: that
the City's current planning processes and procedures need to be modified to expedite
decision - making. This review also considered relevant literature, planning procedures in
other municipalities, and interviews with planners in other jurisdictions.
The review first examines land use planning in New Brunswick, how it evolved, and the
basic principles underlying the province's planning legislation. The next section outlines
"best practices" in other provinces and in New Brunswick municipalities to identify steps
for modifying the City's planning procedures. Stakeholder concerns about Saint John's
planning process are outlined in the next section. These inputs led to an evaluation of
Saint John's planning procedures with recommendations on steps to improve current
practice.
`E:7
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 5
2. Planning Process
Community involvement in land use planning and regulation is essentially a 201h century
innovation. Planning evolved as a means of regulating and controlling the use of land in
support of rational urban development. Planning was seen as a means of protecting
property owners from the negative externalities of adjacent or nearby incompatible land
uses.
The legislative and legal basis for planning includes the preparation and adoption of a
formal Municipal Plan establishing the locations of differing land uses. In general, the
Plan offers a broad -brush overview of the City's land use policies to provide general
direction aimed at the "big picture." The Plan seeks to guide the private sector
development community on where and when to develop their lands, and assist the
municipality in where and when to provide suitable infrastructure to support
development.
The Municipal Plan's general land use planning provisions are subsequently implemented
by site - specific Zoning By -laws. These by -laws regulate land use by classification of
development (residential, commercial, industrial and so forth). In addition, subdivision
by -laws reflect the Plan's provisions for land severance. Essentially the Municipal Plan
establishes land use location while the Zoning By -law determines how much land should
be allocated for specific uses and establishes the riles under which specific uses can be
developed.
2.1 Planning in Nov Brunswick'
Land use planning was initiated in New Brunswick with the adoption of An Act Relating
to Town Planning in 1912." This initial provincial foray into land use planning enabled
local governments to prepare town - planning schemes. Such schemes sought to ensure
land development had suitable provision for "traffic, proper sanitary conditions, amenity,
and convenience in connection with the laying out of streets and use of the land and of
any neighbouring lands for building and other purposes."
Zoning as a means of regulating specific land uses emerged in the 1920's with a classic
U.S. court case establishing the right of a municipality to control land uses for the "public
good. " "' This legal precedent established the principle that municipalities have the right
to interfere with property owners' development and use of their land. But these
individual private rights may only be interfered with for the general public good.
Saint John was one of Canada's early participants in land use planning. In 1917, Thomas
Adams, the founder of modern Canadian planning, claimed, "in practical work, town
planning has advanced further in the City of Saint John than in any other city in
Canada. "`
By 1936, the initial Act was replaced with a new Town Planning Act. This Act replaced
the concept of planning schemes with "Official Town Plans" and introduced planning
commissions as advisors for municipal councils. The Act also provided that prior to
IN
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 6
adopting or amending an Official Town Plan, a public hearing was required.`- Further,
this new Act required Provincial approval of both Plans and Zoning By -laws before they
became law. During the next several decades, planning legislation went through various
amendments and revisions. By 1969, following the adoption of the New Brunswick
Equal Opportunities program, there was growing recognition that contemporary planning
legislation did not fit the needs of the 1970's.
New Brunswick's 1973 Community Planning Act established planning as the central goal
as opposed to zoning. Earlier legislation had permitted zoning without necessarily
having a municipal plan to justify the land use regulation. The new Act was founded on
the basic philosophy that "if an individual was to give up his basic right to use the land as
he saw fit for the good of the community, then the community should tell him why."" In
other words, land use regulation through the implementation of a Zoning By -law had to
be justified by the Municipal Plan.
This planning philosophy was upheld by Justice Stevenson in Stocker v. City of
Fredericton, where he held that zoning by itself was invalid.'-" The court thus
demonstrated that private land rights should only be interfered with to support a defined
public good (as reflected in the Municipal Plan). Since planning interferes with private
land use rights, New Brunswick planning legislation included a statutory requirement for
a public hearing prior to the Council's adoption of planning by -laws.
The Community Planning Act is based on the parliamentary principle of "checks and
balances." These are reflected in three key elements, legislative, executive and judicial
functions that check and balance each other in the planning approval process. In other
words, Council in session reflects the legislative process; the Commissioner and planning
staff, the executive function; and PAC and the Province's Assessment and Planning
Appeal Board (APAB), the judicial role.
The legislative function involves both Council's statutory public hearing where the
members act as a "quasi - judicial tribunal" prior to making a decision on proposed
planning legislation (by- laws), and the Provincial Minister's subsequent approval of the
Plan and its amendments following council adoption.
The executive role is to implement Council's planning legislation. The executive is the
Council appointed development officer mandated to enforce the City's planning
legislation. Enforcement is achieved by determining whether or not planning and
development applications meet the specifics of the Council approved Municipal Plan,
Zoning and Subdivision By -laws. The development officer has no discretionary power
with respect to an application either meets the planning legislative requirements and thus,
receives a permit, or it does not. In the latter situation, a plan amendment, zoning by -law
amendment or a minor variance is required prior to issuing a building permit. PAC and
Council may delegate some discretion to a development officer in the implementation of
terms and conditions for approved applications.
By -law amendments and variances are dealt with by the Community Planning Act's
"judicial" element. This function includes the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and
the Province's Assessment and Planning Appeal Board (APAB). PAC recommends
20
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 7
proposed legislative (by -law) amendments to Council, but makes decisions on variances
directly. PAC decisions may be appealed to the APAB (as per Section 84 of the
Community Planning Act).
By the late 1970's, Canadian land use planning was increasingly recognized as a
"political" activity. Political in the sense that planning decisions directly affect land
value and thus, such decisions should be made by accountable (elected) bodies rather
than by appointed (non - elected) individuals. For example, the Ontario Minister of
Municipal Affairs enunciated this principle as: "municipal planning by its very nature is a
political process and as such, policy decisions should be made by elected
representatives. "iii This shift in planning philosophy led to Ontario Planning Act
amendments to remove the requirement that non - elected citizens serve on municipal
Planning Boards. This allowed councilors to replace citizens on planning boards and to
deal directly with planning legislation. Variances remained separate from elected
councils in the domain of Committees of Adjustment.
In the Ontario situation, council's planning decisions and the Committee of Adjustment's
variances may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). However, only those
persons who made oral or written submissions to Council or the Committee of
Adjustment are permitted to appeal to OMB. The OMB hearing deals only with the
application as presented to Council or Committee; any new evidence necessitates a
referral of the matter back to the Council or Committee for reconsideration."
This philosophical thrust towards recognizing an enhanced political role in planning was
reflected in various reviews and subsequent amendments to planning legislation in many
provinces. The 1979 review of the New Brunswick Community Planning Act
recommended the abolishment of PACs in favour of placing planning responsibilities
directly in the hands of elected councils.' However, the Provincial government did not
adopt this recommendation. As a result, the earlier provisions of the 1973 Community
Planning Act, which requires that PACs be comprised with a majority of non - elected
citizens, remains in effect. In addition, PACs are politically important bodies since
overturning their recommendation requires a vote of the majority of the full council.
The continuing statutory authority of New Brunswick's PACs reflects a century -old
concept that emerged from the Progressive Era in the early 1900's in which separate
boards and commissions were established to minimize politics in local government. Such
curbs were introduced by the urban reformers of the period to rationalize local
government and eliminate rampant municipal corruption in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries."
During the latter part of the 20th century, many Canadian municipalities eliminated most
of their separate boards and commissions to regain their political authority. The
replacement of citizens on planning advisory bodies with councilors in other provinces
reflects this modern philosophical shift in strengthening municipal governance.
2.2 Natural Justice and Administrative Law
Appointed PACs and elected Councils serve as quasi - judicial tribunals in reviewing,
recommending and making decisions on land use- planning matters. Their quasi - judicial
21
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 8
role in planning matters was pointed out in Stanley Maktich's Canadian Municipal and
Planning Lair.
Finally, it is clear that municipalities in rezoning individual parcels of land,
issuing licenses, or granting a permit can be performing quasi - judicial functions
and affecting rights in the narrow legal sense. In such cases, traditional legal
values reflected in the riles of natural justice and in the concept of procedural
fairness demand due process protection."'
As quasi - judicial tribunals, administrative law binds PAC and Council as their decision -
making powers are derived from legislative statute."" Administrative law outlines the
riles for the functioning of quasi - judicial tribunals. Tribunal procedures are meant to be
flexible and less formal than in a court in order to deal fairly with the issue being
adjudicated. However, the paramount procedural requirement is fairness. As pointed
out by Sara Blake in Administrative Law in Canada:
At a minimum, the doctrine of fairness requires that, before a decision adverse to
a person's interest is made, the person should be told the case against him or her
and be given an opportunity to respond. The purpose is twofold. The person to
be affected is given an opportunity to defend his interests or assert a claim, and by
allowing that person to provide information, the decision -maker is better able to
make a rational and informed decision. A person is more willing to accept an
adverse decision if the process has been fair. "°
From a land use planning perspective, fairness or natural justice implies that the applicant
for a planning proposal, amendment or a variance has the right to receive a copy of all
written advice (i.e. staff reports), to be present during all verbal presentations and
discussion (by staff, PAC and others) and to receive a copy of the written decision
including the reasons for the decision. " APAB has riled on the concept of fairness and
natural justice in a number of recent decisions. These cases involve fairness in the
planning process including: notification, presentations (both public and private), in-
camera private meetings, and the provision of written decisions with reasons. "'
Natural justice is about fairness. Fairness is often encapsulated in an old adage: `that not
only should justice be done, but also it must be seen to be done."'" If the community is
satisfied that the planning application has been handled fairly they will continue to have
faith in the decisions being made. " -iii Natural justice underlies procedural fairness for
administrative quasi - judicial tribunals such as PACs and Council and incorporates the
following guidelines:
• the applicant receives adequate notice of the hearing,
• decision - makers declare any personal interest they may have in the proceedings
(conflicts of interest),
• decision - makers are unbiased and act in good faith,
• proceedings are conducted fairly for all parties as expressed in the Latin maxim
andi alteram partem: "let the other side be heard.,"
• each party in the proceedings is entitled to ask questions and contradict the
evidence being provided by the other party, and
22
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 9
• decision - makers take into account relevant considerations and extenuating
circumstances, and ignore irrelevant considerations.
2.3 Planning Principles
The concept of good planning is a general term. There are no agreed upon statement of
good planning principles. However, there are a number of general guidelines to consider.
These guidelines imply that planners and those making planning decisions, such as PACs
and Council should:
• ensure the health and safety of the public and users of new developments,
• evaluate the physical, social and land use impacts of a development proposal and
attempt to minimize the negative effects on the public and users of the planned
development,
• consider the environmental and ecological implications of the proposal,
• recognize their responsibility to implement Council's policies and riles, including
those reflected in the Municipal Plan, Zoning and Subdivision By -laws,
• respect the landowner's right to use, enjoy and develop their land and restrict
those rights only to the extent necessary for the greater public good,
• promote the public interest when managing growth and development, inform the
affected public of planning proposals, and solicit and consider their opinion, and
• seek the most efficient use of resources, both economically and functionally. "'
When considering land use development proposals involving Municipal Plan and Zoning
By -law amendments or variances, it is the use of land that is the primary concern, not the
characteristics of the people who will use the proposed development, nor the project's
economic benefits or losses. In other words, the relevant issue for planners, PAC and
Council is the proposed land use, not its future users.
For example, in considering affordable housing applications, land use is the relevant key
element not the anticipated tenants or provincial housing policy. Similarly, when
considering land use planning proposals, economic issues such as the development's
impact on property taxes or increased competition leading to a loss of revenue for
existing businesses are not relevant. On the other hand, relevant land use elements
include such related factors such as: design, parking, traffic, impact on neighbouring
properties and compliance with the City's planning legislation."
23
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 10
3. Planning Process Comparisons
A review of planning processes in a sample of cities and provinces across the country
was undertaken through a combination of telephone interviews and a search of provincial
and municipal web sites. The objective was to identify planning practices for comparison
with Saint John's. The review considered:
• planning application procedures,
• planning approval processes including whether or not there was a statutory
requirement for a PAC or its equivalent,
• whether councilors served on these advisory bodies, and
• limits, if any, on public presentations at committee and council.
The web based searches in the sampled communities and provinces did not always
provide clear answers, but there was a sufficient number to allow for a general
comparison.
3.1 Planning Application Procedures
The City of Saint John provides a basic outline of the processes for plan amendments,
rezoning, and variances both on -line and in readily available brochures. Although this is
helpful, it does not provide the information in lay terms such that ordinary citizens can
easily follow the process and access the necessary documentation. Saint John does not
have planning application forms and other documentation available to download on -line.
Other municipalities provide simple introductions to their planning processes and outline
the steps involved in amending planning by -laws or obtaining variances. These planning
process information items are often available on -line and in printed brochures. Many of
the sampled municipalities provide on -line application forms, either as a download or to
be completed and submitted electronically. The following table 1 outlines the planning
information material provided on -line in a sample of Canadian municipalities.
24
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 11
Table 1: Planning Procedure Information Available On -Line
City
Information and
brochures
Planning Amendment and Variance
Application Forms
Down - loadable
Electronic
Submission
Victoria BC
X
X
Abbotsford BC
X
X
Edmonton AB
X
X
Calgary AB
X
X
Saskatoon SK
X
X
Winnipeg MB
X
X
Windsor ON
X
X
Waterloo ON
X
X
Kawartha Lakes ON
X
X
Kingston ON
X
X
Ottawa ON
X
X
Saint John NB
X
Many municipalities provide comprehensive information on the planning process in their
communities. Some examples can be found as follows:
• Victoria's FAQ's provide a quick reference for the public on how to proceed
with a planning application:
http://www.victoria.ca/residents/planning fag. shtml
• Abbotsford provides a series of guides for planning amendments:
http:// www.abbotsford.cafPaeFactory.as x ?Pae�7 =370
• Calgary takes the public information process a step fiirther by publishing on-
line, an excellent Community (guide to the Planning Process as well as
providing a "Glossary of Planning Jargon" and training for the public on
planning matters:
hitp: / /www. calvary. caldocallery �TJ /plamlin� /pdf /pep�uide.pdf
• Kawartha Lakes' offers a set of comprehensive guides to planning and zoning
amendments:
25
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 12
http: / /www. city.kawarthalakes. on. ca/CityHall /Dept /DevServices /planning. ht
M
• Ottawa's twelve steps outlining the Development Application Review Process
can be found in:
hasp: // www. ottawa .calresidents /plamlin�; /dev review process /approvals /index
_en.html Similar to Calgary, Ottawa also provides public education in
planning in a series of primers:
hasp: // www. ottawa .calresidents /plamlin� /pri�x�er /index en.html
• Saskatoon also provides planning education for their citizens as outlined in:
http: / /www.saskatoon.ca/org /city planning /planning_ education progranvinde
x. asp
One of the key features in these municipal planning application processes is a pre -
application or pre - consultation meeting between the planners and the applicant before
submitting a planning application. In some municipalities such a meeting is mandatory,
while in others it is highly recommended as a means of expediting the approval process.
Although the Saint John planners currently recommend this step, it does not always take
place. At times, this missing step has led to difficulties with the application.
Most municipalities have cost - recovery fee schedules such that the application fee varies
with the complexity of the submitted proposal. Variable fees are not used in Saint John.
Saint John charges a flat fee for all amendments or variances regardless of their
complexity and the time commitment required for their review and assessment by all
municipal staff
Other municipalities require extensive documentation in the form of well - prepared plans
and drawings in multiple copies for distribution to the different departments and agencies
involved in assessing them. Information on land ownership is also required, including
whether or not an agent is acting on behalf of the owner or an applicant with the owner's
written permission. These application requirements exceed Saint John's planning
application expectations.
3.2 Provincial Comparisons
Land use planning is a provincial responsibility under Sec. 92 of Canada's Constitution
Act of 1982. Provinces have delegated land use planning to local governments. As the
impact of planning decisions are usually local, in recent years, most provinces have taken
steps to delegate further planning authority by increasing municipal autonomy and
independence in land use planning matters. This approach was reflected in BC, Alberta,
and Nova Scotia where former Planning Acts were subsumed into other local government
legislation. In BC, land use planning and policy comes under the Local Government Act.
In Alberta, planning is found within the Municipal Government Act. Similarly, in Nova
Scotia land use planning is now subsumed in Part VIII of the Municipal Government Act
of 1998. Saskatchewan also moved to increase municipal autonomy and independence in
planning in its new Planning and Development Act in 2007.
26
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 13
In some provinces, such as BC and Nova Scotia, planning approvals are initially provided
at a staff level or by a commission with an appeal of the decision being made to City
Council. New Brunswick's recent Commission on the Future of Local Governance
recommends that development officers be allowed to approve minor variances. In cases
where the development officer rejects the variance request, the applicant could appeal to
PAC.
In many provinces including New Brunswick, provincial approval is still required for
plan amendments. In recent years, New Brunswick's provincial oversight into municipal
planning has been reduced. Limited provincial oversight reflects New Brunswick's long
standing planning philosophy that the "municipal council has the right to be wrong, so
long as it hears the public prior to making a decision and carries out the adoption process
laid down in the Act. " "ii In New Brunswick, provincial oversight of municipal planning
decisions is limited to procedural review — this issue of "good or bad" planning remains
the prerogative of the local council.
In provinces from Ontario west (with the exception of Manitoba), the statutory
requirement that Council must consult a planning advisory body has been removed. The
various legislations allow Councils to establish planning advisory bodies if they wish but
it is not mandatory. In addition, membership of the advisory body is up to Council to
decide. In some jurisdictions, Council may establish several local planning advisory
committees to handle complex applications in different areas of the municipality.
In most cases, Councils have chosen to have planning considered a Council matter and
the planning decision process rests with the elected body. For example, in Ottawa, a
standing committee handles planning matters — the Planning and Environment
Committee, which is comprised entirely of City Councilors. In Ontario, minor variances
are handled by a separate Committee of Adjustment, which is comprised of council
appointed citizens.
New Brunswick's recent Report of the Commission on the Future of Local Governance,
Building ,Stronger Local Governments and Regions called for the abolition of District
Planning Commissions and the creation of PACs for all proposed new and reconfigured
municipal entities. Further the review recommended:
... that careful consideration be given to the respective roles of the development
officer, the planning advisory committee and the municipal council in order to
ensure an appropriate and effective balance in the division of responsibilities
between them in the matter of land use planning.'""
In effect, this report on "Expediting Saint John's Planning and Development Process"
reflects part of the intent of the Commissioner's recommendation.
New Brunswick municipalities with PACs tend to have appointed council members.
Table 2 provides the results of a survey of New Brunswick municipalities to determine
whether or not they have councilors appointed to serve on their PACs.
27
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 14
Table 2: Councilors Serving on New Brunswick PACs
Municipality
Councilors on PAC
Citizens on PAC
Saint John
1 *
8
Fredericton
4
5
Rothesay
2
7
Quispamsis
1
7
Grand Bay - Westfield
1
6
* Not appointed by Council to PAC, but rather he was a PAC member at the time of his
election to Council.
3.3 Presentations to PAC and Council
Most municipalities surveyed have placed reasonable limits on the number of delegations
permitted to speak on a given planning item and the time they have to present their case.
New Bninswick's Local Government Resource Manual suggests that for presentations to
Council (and thus other Council committees) that:
A stated timeline should be given to the group for its presentation and ample time
should be allotted at the end of the presentation for a question period, to assist in
the clarification of the issue or request being presented (emphasis added.)"'
The following table summarizes a sample of presentation restraining measures used in
various municipalities across the country. It is apparent from this sample of communities
across the country that establishing reasonable time limits and restraining repetition for
presentations on planning issues is fair and reasonable. Saint John's PAC does not
impose any presentation limits. Common Council does a have a 15- minute limit on
presentations in their procedural by -law, however, it is apparent from comments received
from the interviewees that this limit is rarely enforced.
28
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 15
Table 3: Restraining Planning Issue Presentations
City
Time Limit
Limit on
Decision -maker
Number of
Speakers
Victoria BC
5 minutes
At Board of Variance
Abbotsford BC
10 minutes
One speaker per
At Council
delegation
Edmonton AL
5 minutes
Councilors have a 5
minute question period
Calgary AL
5 minutes
At Council
Saskatoon SK
5 minutes
5 minutes for
At Council
full delegation
Regina SK
10 minutes
At Council and
Committee
Winnipeg MB
Reasonable time
No repetition allowed at
limit set by Chair
Council and PAC
Windsor ON
5 minutes
At Council. A 5 minute
extension is allowed at
Chair's discretion
Kawartha Lakes ON
10 minutes
If 2 speakers, 5
Chair or 2/3 majority
minutes each
can allow extensions in
5 minute increments
Ottawa ON
5 minutes
At Planning and
Environment Committee
and Council
Kingston ON
5 minutes
Councilors allowed 2
questions per delegation
Fredericton NB
PAC — 5 minutes
One hour for PAC
Council — 15
presentations on each
minutes
item and no repetition
Saint John NB
Common Council
No limit on
No limits on repetition
- 15 minutes (not
number of
enforced)
speakers
29
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 16
4. Stakeholders' Planning Concerns
Interviews were undertaken with many key stakeholders in the Saint John planning and
development process. These interviews sought the stakeholders' perception of the
current planning application and approval processes and whether or not change is
required. If so, what suggestions did the interviewees have for improvements?
There was considerable consistency among all those interviewed that change was
essential if the City of Saint John is to handle the anticipated increase in the number and
complexity of planning applications in the near future. Many themes were repeated
amongst the stakeholders. The common concerns raised by the interviewees include:
• the City's outdated Municipal Plan,
• overworked Planning and Development staff,
• strict interpretation by Engineering, Building Inspection and Heritage
Planning, and
• inefficient PAC and Council procedures for handling planning applications.
4.1 City of Saint John Municipal Plan
The City of Saint John Municipal Plan was adopted in 1973 and has been amended from
time to time. The 1973 Municipal Plan was based on an anticipated population growth to
250,000. The City has not grown to anywhere near this level and, in fact has actually
experienced population decline. The 2006 Statistics Canada Census found the City of
Saint John had a population of 68,043, a decline of some 1,600 people from the 2001
level of 69,661. This population difference between the 1973 Municipal Plan's
expectations and today's reality has led to difficulties in providing new municipal
infrastructure to support growth and development, and in giving clear directions to the
development community on where future growth should occur.
The greatest concern about the antiquated Municipal Plan is that it is not considered
"relevant." This has led stakeholders to believe the plan does not relate to their proposed
projects. Hence, they quickly seek to amend the Plan to allow their projects to proceed.
The result is a tendency for PAC and Council to make "ad hoc" and, at times,
inconsistent planning decisions.
Such inconsistency has led to a public perception that Saint John is "desperate for
development" and "anything" is acceptable. The stakeholders voiced a strong desire for a
change in Saint John's approach to upgrade and document its development standards to
improve the City's image.
The Municipal Plan's apparent lack of credibility does not help to expedite processing
planning and development applications. Given its age and, at times, lack of relevance,
the Municipal Plan is subjected to numerous amendments — all of which take city staff
time and resources and add to PAC and Common Council lengthy agendas.
We
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 17
4.2 City Staff
All the stakeholders interviewed praised Planning and Development staff for their
support and efficiency in handling the myriad of issues relating to various development
proposals. At the same time, however, there was considerable concern about apparent
barriers and non - supportive attitudes found amongst Engineering, Building Inspection
and Heritage Planning staff
Although the development community supports enhanced formal, written City policies,
procedures and design standards, they believe they cannot be implemented overnight.
Many stakeholders suggested a transition period to bring all stakeholders both inside and
external to City Hall up to speed on the policies, programs, standards, procedures and
guidelines. Engineering provides briefings and outreach sessions for stakeholders but
they may not be covering the full need for public education. There is a requirement for
clear, step -by -step design guidelines for all aspects of residential subdivisions and other
developments. These design guidelines would assist the development community and
internal municipal staff by standardizing approaches to be used.
Some stakeholders pointed out that planning staff is development- oriented and
understand and support the need for economic development and growth in the
community. On the other hand, the same could not be said for other municipal
departments, particularly Engineering, Building Inspection and Heritage Planning. These
departments were not seen by developers to be promoters of economic development and
growth. Many stakeholders claimed the City needs "enablers not barriers."
4.2.1 Engineering and Building Inspection
Several stakeholders spoke of the difficulties they faced in obtaining approval from
Engineering and Building Inspection for affordable housing projects. For example, one
stakeholder relayed a concern over a delay in issuing an essential building permit for an
affordable housing project. In this case, the delay occurred over a $60 deposit that had
not been paid. Rather than informing the applicant of this minor oversight, Building staff
held up the permit and a significant delay occurred. The stakeholder suggested a quick
telephone call would have expedited the project.
Many stakeholders perceive there has been a culture shift within Engineering, Building
Inspection and Heritage Planning. In recent years, they appear to have become more
rigid and rile -bound as they strictly interpret the City's bylaws and policies. In effect,
from the development community's perspective, they have become "soft cops" enforcing
the riles rather than supporting development.
Engineering staff was accused of not giving reasons for their decisions (although
Engineering's spokesperson claimed reasons are provided). For example, at an
affordable housing project, the applicant wished to divert a sewer to run under a
driveway. But apparently they were denied permission to do so with no reason being
given. (The Engineering spokesperson indicated the sewer was eventually diverted, so
why is this still an issue ?)
Stakeholders claimed Engineering is downloading too much onto developers. There
seems to be a growing requirement for developers to undertake various infrastructure
cal
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 18
studies to verify information that developers claim the City already has available.
Several developers raised concerns about the city's residential lot subsidy requirements
being changed without discussion or advance notification. For example, they claimed
that payments used to be provided on a per lot basis, but now it is on a per sewer lateral
basis. This change affected the finances of at least one residential developer. Further,
some stakeholders were concerned that the City's performance bond requirements are too
high. Given today's increasingly tight credit situation, it will be difficult for smaller
firms to obtain the apparently excessive bond requirements being set by Engineering.
Some stakeholders raised concerns Building Inspections' role in development. It appears
that building permit applications will not be processed until all of PAC's and Council's
planning terms and conditions are met. In some cases, these conditions deal with
aesthetic and landscaping elements that relate to the latter part of the development
process. Delaying building permits until all conditions are finalized causes unnecessary
delays — leading to developer frustration and added costs. The issue appears to arise from
the reluctance of Building Inspections to issue partial permits.
Stakeholders pointed out that although planning staff supports development, they
represent a marginal department within City Hall. The "real" planners are seen to be the
engineers — they decide when and where to provide the infrastructure that allows
development to occur. So why waste time with the City's planners, when others are
making the key decisions? The lack of an up -to -date Municipal Plan and supporting
Zoning By -law likely contributes to this perception.
On the other hand, many stakeholders recognize that Engineering is struggling to
maintain the City's very old infrastructure — essential to the continued operations of all
aspects of Saint John. Engineering, like other municipal departments is also struggling
with limited human resources to tackle all of its many projects and programs. However,
there is an apparent need for more professional resources to be devoted by Engineering to
support planning and development proposal review and subsequent implementation.
Stakeholders indicated that while planning tends to be future-oriented, municipal
engineering is necessarily focused on more immediate problems. Hence, when planning
staff seeks comment from Engineering on development applications, their request is
added to Engineering's already busy schedule, so they may get short shrift. Additional
professional staff support for evaluating and implementing planning and development
applications is essential.
It was reported that there are times when Engineering was unable to respond to planning
staffs' requests for input on applications prior to PAC consideration. This resulted in
applications being processed without Engineering's crucial input. Again, the lack of
adequate resources in Engineering limits their ability to deal effectively with all planning
applications. This weakens the role of Planning and Development within City Hall, and
in the eyes of the external community. Moving PAC to a monthly meeting schedule will
provide Engineering and other departments more time to fully assess and respond to
planning and development applications and issues.
32
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 19
4.2.2 Planning and Development
It was apparent to most stakeholders that planning staff is overworked, but they are
dedicated to making things happen expeditiously.
Concerns were raised about the applications, such as the lack of appropriate plans and
drawings and other shortcomings. To assist citizens in their amendment and variance
applications, planning staff often draw the requisite plans by hand by tracing over aerial
photographs. The resulting drawings are of relatively poor quality and, at times, not
likely to be helpful to PAC in reviewing staff reports. On the other hand, the written
reports are professional and reflect the quality experienced in other municipalities.
Saint John is too flexible in terms of what is accepted as an application for planning
proposals (Plan, Zoning, Subdivision proposals or amendments and minor variances) as
well as for building permits. Other municipalities demand comprehensive and complete
applications prior to processing them. Apparently, Saint John accepts incomplete or
poorly prepared documentation as applications for both planning and building permits.
The development community must come to understand that they too have a responsibility
to provide complete and accurate information in their applications. It is difficult for
municipal staff to interpret intent from incomplete or inaccurate submissions. The
difficulty arising from incomplete applications is that each evaluating department has to
go back to the applicant for clarification, leading to delays and community frustration.
Stakeholders claimed they would like to have a comprehensive written planning policy
manual to clarify how planning applications are to be submitted and processed.
Similarly, they called for written standards from Engineering, Building Inspection and
Heritage Planning. In addition, many stakeholders asked that the City require a pre -
application consultation meeting with planning and other related municipal staff (such as
Engineering and Building Inspection) to review proposals for pitfalls prior to finalizing
their application. Some stakeholders also sought the City's assistance in holding
community meetings to inform and seek opinions on proposed developments.
4.3 Planning Staff and PAC
Many stakeholders pointed out that there is an obvious dysfunctional relationship
between PAC and planning staff Apparently from the community's perspective, PAC
has little regard for the City's planners, their reports and analyses, and their
recommendations. The Chair reads out the planning staff s report on each case as though
it was PAC's. Staff is rarely questioned in public on the substance of the application and
why they made their recommendations.
Planning staff seems to have little input on the terms and conditions that PAC may
impose when they choose to differ with the planner's recommendations. The result is
PAC setting its own terms and conditions. This can leave the applicant with inconsistent
and undeliverable conditions to be met. For example, one stakeholder spoke of the
burdensome PAC conditions set without planning staff input. Council subsequently had
to modify the terms and conditions. Another stakeholder, as a residential lot owner,
spoke of PAC imposing a condition on their application that they ensure the developer
33
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 20
has an approved drainage plan for the entire subdivision. This is Engineering's
responsibility, not that of an individual applicant for a subdivision lot variance.
Planning and Development is obligated to respect and implement Common Council's
Municipal Plan, Zoning and Subdivision By -laws and other planning policies. PAC as a
quasi - judicial body has a discretionary leeway that the planners do not have. However,
PAC is still a body whose members are appointed by Common Council. Some
stakeholders reported that PAC has stated on occasion that they do not care what the
Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law say, they are doing what the Committee thinks is
right. PAC is an advisory body recommending planning, zoning and subdivision items to
Common Council and directly deciding on minor variances. PAC's decisions cannot
ignore the City's existing planning legislation. They cannot recommend to Council or
decide on variances on the basis of what they would like the City's plans and by -laws to
be. If PAC perceives the need for changes in the Plan and Zoning By -law, then they
should propose appropriate amendments for Council consideration and approval.
Planning staff are the City's full -time professionals dealing with land use planning and
development. They diligently review each application and consider them from the
perspective of conformance with the City's planning by -laws. They also analyze the
positive and negative impacts created by each proposal. Their recommendations to PAC
reflect their professional opinion on the optimal approach to improving the quality of life
in the City of Saint John. PAC, on the other hand, is comprised of part -time volunteers,
who know their community well. They also seek to make the best land use planning
decisions to improve the City.
Planning should not be an adversarial process between PAC and staff Rather it should
be complementary - a process that seeks the best inputs from both groups (community
experience coupled with professional advice) to achieve quality development for the
City.
Apparently, as pointed out in Report of the Commissioner on the Future of Local
Governance, this issue of confiised planning roles and mandates seems to be widespread
throughout the province. As cited earlier, the Commissioner recommended that the roles
of the development officer, PAC and municipal council be carefully considered to define
a balance in their respective responsibilities. " i
In many organizations, one of the top three critical strategies is improving
communication among citizens, staff and decision - makers (in this case PAC and
Common Council). Effective communication is critical to the productive functioning of
local government. This means the transfer of information from one person to another
results in mutual understanding as seen by a change in the listener's behaviour,
demonstrating comprehension. Communication problems arise from messages being
passed through senders and recipient's perceptual filters. Often what is being said and
heard is coloured by our past experiences, culture, education, and social status. These
filters lead to pre judging the intent rather than carefully listening and absorbing the
whole message. "'I
34
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 21
The communications literature is replete with examples of barriers and distorters of
meaning in messages. Many of these barriers interfere with effective communications.
Such barriers include:
• hearing what you want to hear — to overcome this barrier, a sense of trust must
be developed,
• tendency to evaluate (either - or) — overcoming this barrier requires the effort
of seeing the issue from the speaker's perspective,
• ignoring information that conflicts with what we "know ",
• rash judgments based on only hearing partial information - we need to listen
to the whole message before deciding,
• emotional blocks leading to defensive or aggressive responses, and hidden
agendas leading to only part of the message being received.''` "'
Many of these communication difficulties appear to be present in the dialogue between
planning staff and PAC (and between PAC and Council). Such difficulties must be
overcome to achieve the optimal contribution from the professionalism of staff and the
community knowledge of PAC members. Effective communication implies trust and an
ability to place oneself in the other person's frame of reference (seeing the world as they
see it). There is a need for active listening to the whole message being conveyed.
In effect, a facilitating environment is needed at the PAC meetings to generate effective
communication. Citizens, staff and PAC members must feel accepted and able to speak
freely and openly. A facilitating environment stands in sharp contrast to the apparently
defensive atmosphere in current PAC meetings. Table 4 outlines the crucial differences
between facilitating and defensiveness in communications.
Table 4: Facilitating and Defensive Communication Environments
Facilitating Atmosphere
Defensive Atmosphere
• description
• evaluation
• problem orientation
• control
• spontaneity
• strategy
• empathy
• neutrality
• equality
• superiority
• provisional
• certainty
Overcoming the current dysfunctional relationship between PAC and staff (as well as
between PAC and Council) requires a dedicated effort on the part of all participants in the
planning process to create a facilitating environment to ensure everyone fully understands
the differing perspectives of the planning issues being discussed.
35
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 22
4.3.1 PAC Public Hearing
All stakeholders called for greater efficiency in dealing with public presentations at PAC
and Common Council. Stakeholders recounted "horror stories" about overly lengthy
PAC and Council meetings where other crucial business was held up by extensive and,
often - irrelevant presentations bordering on filibustering. When a time limit on
presentations to PAC and Council was suggested, all stakeholders believed the time had
come to do so. As one community development stakeholder emphatically stated: "please
limit to 5 minutes!"
Many stakeholders believed the public would abide by stricter presentation riles
provided they know about them in advance and the riles are applied uniformly and
consistently.
4.3.2 Personality -based Discussion
Saint John stakeholders commented that many PAC decisions appear to be based on
personalities rather than on relevant land use concerns. As members of a quasi - judicial
tribunal, PAC members must carefully guard their independence and be unbiased. They
cannot have a direct, and should not have a perceived, conflict of interest in the
application before the PAC.
Discussing personalities can lead to a perception of conflict and are often not relevant to
land use matters under discussion. For example at the Saint John PAC meeting on
October 2"a, 2008, one member asked an applicant about his relationship to another
person. The question was well meaning, as the concern was whether or not the
applicant's brother, who works in the constriction industry, was planning to store
equipment in the over -sized garage for which the applicant was seeking a variance.
However, despite its apparent appropriateness, members of the public at this public
meeting could well have wondered why such a personal question was being asked.
In the form it was asked, the question was inappropriate and the Chair could have riled it
out of order. The question could have been asked in other ways, such as "do you plan on
storing constriction equipment in the garage ?" Alternatively, and more appropriately,
specific terms and conditions could have been placed on the variance to prevent the
oversized garage from being used to store constriction equipment. Planning staff could
have provided appropriate wording to assist PAC in setting such terms and conditions,
had they been asked.
4.3.3 Seeking Compromise
Some stakeholders were concerned that PAC spends inordinate time seeking
compromises in complex and controversial planning applications. As one stakeholder put
it, "PAC has too much respect for dissenting opinions."
Although mediation and conciliation is a noble cause, it is not PAC's mandate to seek an
acceptable compromise. The PAC's role is to recommend on the best use of land, not
find a compromise that may lead to a lower quality development.
W
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 23
Some stakeholders stated that PAC should focus on fundamental land use planning, not
trivial details. The recent Report of the Commissioner on the Future of Local
Governance focused on this issue with the recommendation that development officers
deal with minor variance applications. The rationale for this recommendation was: "the
present practice of having appointed planning commissioners or planning advisory
committee members decide on such minor issues is too time consuming and detracts from
their policy responsibilities. "'"
The planning staff is supposed to be focused on the application's details in their
discussions with applicants prior to the PAC meeting or in the period between PAC and
the subsequent Common Council meeting. Seeking to mediate community concerns over
a planning proposal can lead PAC into modifying an application on an ad -hoc basis.
Quick changes to the application without thoughtful planning staff input may do more
harm than good to the community. It is not PAC's mandate to make such changes, their
role is to deliberate and decide on the application as submitted.
Some PAC's have adopted a practice that anytime an applicant seeks to change the
application following the public input at the PAC meeting, the matter is tabled. This
allows the applicant to meet with staff to review the proposed changes and bring the
application back to the PAC with staff recommendations. In this manner, application
changes are meaningful, seeking to satisfy both the developer's intent and public
concerns.
4.4 PAC and Common Council
The apparent disjunction between PAC's interpretations and Council's intent in planning
and development led a number of stakeholders to observe that there really isn't much
need to consider PAC's decisions (with the exception of variances) as the real decision is
made by Common Council.
Until recently, there was no Council member serving on the Saint John PAC. Thus there
seems to have been little communication and relationship between the two bodies. As a
result, planning by -law amendments tended to have a hearing de novo (a new hearing) at
Common Council. All the arguments for and against the proposal made at PAC tend to
be repeated at Council. Saint John's double full hearing process takes considerable time
from Council meetings.
Recently, PAC has had one councilor serving as a member. This did not come about by
design, but rather as a result of a PAC member being elected to Common Council in the
recent municipal election. This fortuitous circumstance means that some commonality
between the two bodies may be achieved.
Almost all stakeholders believed that having more councilors appointed to the PAC
would be a good thing by improving communication. However, one stakeholder voiced
his opposition to this concept. In the past, he had served on PAC with councilors. He
believed these councilors were there to voice the Mayor's concerns and not as unbiased,
quasi - judicial PAC members. He said these councilors "tended to talk too much." The
result, he claimed, was a number of successful appeals of PAC decisions to the APAB.
37
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 24
4.4.1 PAC Appointments
Many stakeholders raised concerns about the process used by the City to appoint PAC
members. The concern is that the process does not seem to be open and transparent. As
one stakeholder put it, "everyone knows you lobby your councilor to get onto a
committee." The general public perception is that such Council appointments reflect an
`old boy's club.' Several stakeholders claim that Common Council needs to be educated
on the importance of having good, qualified people appointed to its committees, boards
and commissions. Suggestions were provided for the types of experience that should be
reflected in future PAC appointments, such as: architects, engineers, surveyors,
environmental planners, councilors, business people, contractors, and lawyers.
4.4.2 Dealing with Change
Some stakeholders raised concerns about the ability of PAC, Common Council and staff
to deal with change. Several stakeholders suggested that Saint John is not used to change.
Change is seen as risky by local developers, whereas outside development firms seem
more amenable to significant shifts. However, concerns were raised about how PAC has
treated outside development firms in the past. Stakeholders suggested that PAC has
sought to deter outside developers, essentially creating new barriers for them.
Outside developers usually bring in new financing, ideas and ways of doing things, which
in turn improves and advances the local development community. Saint John needs the
stimulus that outside development firms create.
Comments were made by many stakeholders on the need for orientation and education
for PAC members on their mandate and role in implementing the Council's planning
policies. In addition, some stakeholders suggested the PAC and Common Council need
training in embracing the concept of change as a good, not a bad thing for the
community.
79P.
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 25
5. Streamlining the Planning Process
S.1 Planning and Municipal Staff
Saint John's Planning and Development Department is understaffed. Currently the
Department is searching for a Deputy - Commissioner of Planning and the Senior Planner
is only working part -time. It is unlikely the latter will be involved in current planning in
the future. These two vacancies are filled with part -time contractual staff from a local
consulting firm. But even with these contracted positions there remains a shortage of
critical skills and professional and technical staff for the Department to meet its
obligations in reviewing and updating the City's antiquated Municipal Plan and Zoning
By -law. The result is an overworked, but dedicated planning staff struggling to
accommodate the City's growing development needs. An anticipated increase in
complex planning and development applications from energy mega- projects and spin -off
activities will likely stretch the Department's capabilities beyond the breaking point.
The Planning and Development Department is comprised of six professional staff: a
Commissioner, a vacant Deputy - Commissioner position, two senior planners who do not
handle current planning applications, and one planner and two planning officers dealing
with applications. The senior planning officer in this latter group has been with the City
for 15 years and has a wealth of local knowledge. The other two staff members have
been with the City from 2'/z to 3'/z years. Planning officers have planning diplomas while
the planner has a degree.
The Department is facing human resource issues with respect to an anticipated retirement
of a senior planner and the part -time involvement of the second as well as the need to fill
the Deputy - Commissioner position. On top of these concerns, there is a need for
additional professional planners to handle the more complex research and analysis for
reviewing and updating the Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law.
As discussed earlier in Section 4, part of the current staff workload involves preparing
drawings for some applicants. Planning staff should not be spending valuable time on
these trivial chores, as important as this service may be for some applicants. The
community should be expected to submit appropriate scalable drawings (even if hand -
sketched) with their applications. There is too great a community expectation that
planning staff will provide this service.
The Department should hire an appropriately qualified planning technician to transfer the
applicant's drawings into a consistent and appropriate format for PAC and Council
deliberations. This planning technician can also assist applicants by explaining planning
procedures, ensuring they understand the application forms, and reviewing the submitted
applications for completeness prior to their evaluation by professional planning staff. At
times, planning staff has had to stuff envelopes to meet notification letter deadlines for
upcoming PAC meetings. Professional planners should not be misusing their time for
routine front office procedures. Additional support staff is also required in the
Department.
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 26
Recommendation 1:
Additional staff is required for Planning and Development to enable it to meet
Common Council's goals of updating the Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law. A
minimum of two professional planners, a planning technician and additional front
office support is required.
Recommendation 2:
Applicants should be required to submit scalable drawings of their proposed
projects, rather than depending on planning staff to prepare them.
5.2 Planning Application Process
5.2.1 PAC Meeting Schedule
A major part of Planning and Development's work overload comes from PAC's current
two -week meeting schedule. Most other New Brunswick PACs operate on a one -month
cycle with the opportunity for special meetings during the peak constriction season, if the
need arises.
The problem with the PAC's rapid meeting schedule is that it places planning staff on a
virtual treadmill. The first week involves identifying property owners within a defined
radius of the proposed project and then sending out notices of the forthcoming PAC
meeting to them. In addition, other relevant departments and agencies are contacted for
their evaluation and comments on the planning proposal. The second week is reserved
for reviewing the applications and preparing staff reports with recommendations for
PAC. Essentially, at this pace, there is little time to reflect on appropriate modifications
or to provide thoughtful input to the developers' proposals. Also, there is no time for
preparing suitable `house - keeping' amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision By -laws.
Such changes would reduce the number of amendments and variances that PAC and
Council currently handle. Nor is there time to undertake the research needed to update
the Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law.
Further, the two -week schedule places undue burdens on other departments and agencies
in responding to the planners' requests for their input on development applications. At
times, given other pressing issues, Engineering is unable to respond with comments on
applications within the two -week time frame. Several Engineering divisions must review
the applications and provide comments to the planners in a consolidated manner. The
result is that Engineering's critical input may be missing in the planners' reports to PAC.
For example, several stakeholders spoke of a PAC approved application involving a
sewer running beneath a proposed swimming pool. Apparently, in this case, Engineering
input was missing, but PAC proceeded without it and approved the variance request.
Changing PAC to a monthly schedule means their meetings must be handled more
efficiently. This review recommends several steps to assist PAC in expediting their
meetings so that a reasonable time frame for accepting, evaluating and reporting on
planning proposals can be established.
40
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 27
Recommendation 3:
The Planning Advisory Committee should meet on a monthly basis. Steps need to
be taken to improve the efficiency of handling planning applications at PAC
meetings to permit setting monthly meetings.
5.2.2 Pre - application Consultation
The City has dealt with many complex project proposals. To assist developers in meeting
the City's many objectives in these major projects, there should be a pre - application
consultation meeting. This consultation meeting to review the preliminary proposal and
provide guidance to the developer should include all the relevant inter - departmental staff
Moving to a monthly PAC meeting schedule will provide time for planning staff and staff
from other relevant departments to engage in a pre - application consultation with
developers. Inter - departmental consultations should occur on a regular basis for complex
projects with planning staff arranging and facilitating the meetings.
Recommendation 4:
Planning and Development should initiate and facilitate pre - application
consultation meetings with developers and other relevant City staff for proposed
complex and /or major projects.
5.2.3 Developers' Information Meetings
Several stakeholders spoke of the need to meet with the affected community on major
projects long before the scheduled PAC meeting on their application. Developers felt
that, at times, they and the local community had been `blind- sided' at PAC with critical
issues being raised at the meeting for the first time.
A community information meeting serves two purposes. It provides information on the
proposed development to the local community, waylaying fears and possibly offsetting
unfounded rumors. It also creates an opportunity for developers to listen to community
concerns and modify their proposals prior to submitting the planning application.
Some stakeholders suggested the City should arrange for these meetings. However, such
a step by the City would add to the planners' already stressed workload. The shortage of
professional planning staff limits the Department's ability to provide full support to this
initiative. In addition, planning staff might be placed in the awkward position of
appearing to support the developer's proposal rather than evaluating it from a
professional and unbiased perspective.
The concept of organizing community information meetings for major and complex
projects is an excellent one. However, it should be the developer rather than the City
who initiates such a meeting. Planning staff can assist by identifying venues and
providing mailing lists identifying property owners in the affected area, provided that no
access to information or privacy issues are associated with doing this. There is a
tendency in Saint John for the community to have too high an expectation of the support
they should be receiving from City staff
41
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 28
Recommendation 5:
Planning and Development should encourage developers of major and complex
projects to hold community information meetings prior to appearing before PAC.
Some staff support, as appropriate should be provided to developers in arranging
community information meetings.
5.2.4 Planning Advocacy
Several stakeholders suggested there is a need for an ombudsperson within Planning and
Development to assist developers (particularly those from outside the community). From
the developers' perspective, they see this ombudsperson planner serving as the `point
person' for them by providing a single key contact for all of the City's needs. In other
words, the ombudsperson would liaise with other relevant inter - departmental staff to
ensure the project progresses effectively and quickly through the City's planning review
and approval system.
From a development perspective, one would expect the City's planners to serve as
advocates for developers and all other applicants in expediting their applications through
the City's evaluation and review processes. The concept of ombudsperson is essentially a
process of advocacy — a role the planners currently perform. There should be no need for
a specially designated individual to undertake this role.
The public perception of the need for an ombudsperson may be more a reflection of the
marginal role of the planners in the municipal administration rather than a demand for a
designated position. Planners need to ensure planning applications are reviewed and
evaluated expeditiously by all relevant departments. But this is difficult to achieve in
their current, apparently marginal position within the civic administration. However, as
Common Council, PAC and senior administration gain greater understanding of the
importance of land development for achieving the City's economic and quality of life
goals, planners will achieve an appropriate status and be able to work inter-
departmentally to ensure projects are dealt with in an appropriate and timely fashion.
Stakeholders spoke passionately about the negative attitudes about developers that they
encountered from some municipal staff, particularly in Engineering, Building Inspection
and Heritage Planning. Developers believed they are seen as the "bad guys, the enemy"
with staff perceiving their mandate as "I am the cop to keep these bad guys from
sneaking in." Although staffs role is to ensure the City's minimum standards are
adhered to in the development process, this does not justify such negativity. Enhancing
the planners' status as advocates for planning application review processes could assist in
overcoming negative attitudes by ensuring all staff participating in the development
process understand the importance of economic development and growth to the City.
No recommendation is being made with respect to the community's call for a planning
ombudsperson due to the resource implications. The planners are already doing what
they can within the system to expedite the review and evaluation process. This request
from the development community reflects to a degree, the heightened expectations they
have about the level of service that the City's planners should be providing. A quick
42
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 29
survey of other municipalities across the country shows that Saint John provides services
to developers (at little cost) that exceed those being offered in other places.
5.2.5 Planning Application Forms
A review of Saint John's planning amendment application forms shows that while they
seek basic information, additional input should be obtained from applicants to ensure
planners, other municipal staff, PAC, and Common Council comprehend the full intent of
the application. As an example, Appendix B provides the first page of the City of
Kingston's "Basic Application Form ", which is to be completed for all planning
applications, and their "Zoning By -Law Amendment Form." More details on these
forms may be found at: http: // www. cityoflc ingston .ca /pdf /planning /app basic.pdf and
http:/ / www. cityofl cingston.ca /pdf/planning /app zoning pdf
Saint John may not require all the details sought in Kingston's application forms, but
some of it may be appropriate. As suggested above, providing added detail on the City's
planning application forms may be appropriate to implement when a planning technician
is hired to assist applicants. Despite the planner's assistance in completing applications,
the proponent still retains ultimate responsibility for the application.
As discussed previously, many municipalities have updated their web sites for
downloading application forms or completing and submitting them on -line. Improving
customer service in Planning and Development should include improvements to its web
pages to provide citizens and developers with easy electronic access to relevant bilingual
planning information and documentation.
A key consideration with respect to applications is when they are considered complete.
Incomplete applications should not be processed for review and evaluation. The City has
been too flexible in the past in accepting partially completed applications with the
requirement for staff follow up with the applicant to provide additional information. This
is frustrating for citizens and developers who expect expeditious service and find their
applications delayed due to incompleteness. The development officer should review the
application for completeness and the application should be deemed incomplete until the
development officer signs off on it.
Recommendation 6:
Planning staff should review planning and development application forms available
from other municipalities to develop appropriate modifications for updating the
City's planning application forms.
Recommendation 7:
Incomplete planning applications should not be processed. The current planning
application form should be amended to allow development officers to sign their
approval of complete applications prior to review and evaluation.
The costs of providing enhanced review and evaluation service to applicants should be
recovered from the fees assessed at the time of application. As discussed previously,
some municipalities charge a variable fee based on the complexity of the proposal and the
43
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 30
amount of review and evaluation time required. For example, Saint John's planning
application fee of $400 is considerably lower than the $800 charged in Fredericton and
$1,000 in Moncton. These New Brunswick planning application fees pale in comparison
to Ottawa where the fee for a minor variance application is $850 and for zoning
amendments could reach $12,000. "' On the other hand, other municipalities maintain
lower fees to encourage development (in effect providing a partial subsidy to promote
development). Saint John should assess its current flat fee stricture to determine whether
it is appropriate to maintain it for complex and major development projects.
Recommendation 8:
The City Manager in conjunction with Planning and Development should review
planning application fees to determine whether or not a variable fee structure is
appropriate for complex and major development projects.
5.2.6 Inter - Departmental Planning Review Committee
Many stakeholders spoke of the need for a regular inter - departmental planning review
committee meeting to evaluate and provide input for all planning applications. With the
current two -week PAC meeting schedule, such meetings are next to impossible to
convene. However, moving to monthly PAC meetings permits regular monthly inter-
departmental planning review committee meetings to be convened and facilitated by
planning staff
Relevant municipal staff should attend this monthly review committee meeting, including
senior personnel from Engineering (roads, traffic, utilities), Recreation and Leisure
Services, and Building Inspection. Depending on the complexity and requirements of
specific planning applications, there could be a need for additional staff input from the
Fire Department (for emergency access), Transit (for bus accessibility), Parking
Commission, Saint John Energy and Enbridge Gas. Adding this meeting to already full
schedules requires a shift in priorities and added human resources. This is particularly
the case in Engineering where added professional support staff for evaluating and
processing planning and development applications is essential.
An inter - departmental planning review committee meeting serves several purposes. First,
it ensures all key municipal staff is familiar with the scope and nature of each application.
Second, other staff are able to interact with each other and offer relevant input to the
planning staff s analysis for each application. Third, the meeting provides a learning
opportunity for the planners and the non - planners to better understand the reasons for
differing inputs.
Despite the proposed monthly schedule for PAC meetings and an inter - departmental
review committee, some complex applications (such as the first phase of the proposed
new oil refinery) will take longer for municipal review and evaluation. The development
community and citizens should not have heightened expectations that every planning
application will be processed within a month — complex and major projects will require
more time.
44
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 31
Recommendation 9:
Following the introduction of monthly PAC meetings, Planning and Development
should convene and facilitate regular monthly inter - departmental planning review
committee meetings to evaluate all planning applications.
Recommendation 10:
The City Manager should ensure relevant municipal departments provide
representation to the inter - departmental planning review committee.
Recommendation 11:
Additional professional staff is required to supplement and support Engineering's
critical role in reviewing, evaluating and processing planning and development
applications.
Having Engineering located outside of City Hall does not help in bringing together the
City's key planning advisors for regular interaction on planning applications. Although
Engineering support staff appears to be more than willing to assist the planners, time is
spent in "telephone tag" seeking essential information on planning applications. If
possible, it would be helpful to have key Engineering staff relocated, at least part -time, to
City Hall.
Recommendation 12:
The City Manager and City Engineer should consider relocating key personnel to
City Hall, at least on a part -time basis, to improve inter - departmental interaction
and communication relating to planning matters.
A further essential contribution by other municipal staff would be their regular attendance
at monthly PAC meetings. Several stakeholders mentioned that PAC, at times, has set
unreasonable terms and conditions on applications. As a result, there have been
occasions when Engineering staff questioned the appropriateness of these conditions after
the fact.
It is important that appropriate senior staff from Engineering and Leisure Services be
present at PAC meetings. They can provide technical advice and respond to PAC's
questions. In their absence, the onus is placed on planning staff to respond to technical
questions from the public and the Committee. At times, these questions are beyond the
technical competence of the planners.
Recommendation 13:
Appropriate senior staff person from Engineering and Leisure Services should
attend the monthly PAC meetings as a resource to the Committee.
5.2.7 Planners' PAC Reports
A report is prepared for each application for Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law
amendments, subdivisions, and variances. The Planning Commissioner assigns
45
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 32
individual planners to handle specific applications. Each planner then determines the
circulation radius for the notification letter, meets with the applicant to discuss the
proposal, undertakes site visits, seeks inter - departmental input, reviews and evaluates the
proposal with respect to the City's planning legislation and policies, and finally prepares
a report on the application for PAC with a firm recommendation. The planner's
recommendation will be to either approve the application with suitable conditions or to
deny it.
If a planner recommends denial of an application, PAC has the discretion to approve it
based on the Committee's interpretation of the best use of the land. In approving such an
application, PAC will usually set specific terms and conditions. Planning staff must be
prepared to suggest suitable conditions for PAC's consideration should the staff
recommendation be overturned. This process is normally referred to having appropriate
terms and conditions available in their "back pocket" for the Committee's consideration.
APAB has argued in recent appeals that reasons must be provided when PAC chooses to
reject their planners' recommendations. In these appeal cases, APAB requests the
presence of the PAC Chair to explain the Committee's rationale for its decision. To
ensure the decision rationale is clear in case of appeal, all applications in which the PAC
overturns staff recommendations should be referred back to staff for comment at the
meeting to ensure the Committee's minutes capture the full intent of PAC's decision.
Recommendation 14:
Planning staff should be prepared to provide terms and conditions for applications
that they have recommended for denial.
Recommendation 15:
When PAC decides to overturn a planning staff recommendation the Committee
should ensure there is adequate discussion for the minutes to provide clear reasons
for the decision. When this situation occurs, staff should be given the opportunity to
comment.
5.2.8 Planning Application Notification Letter
The Community Planning Act does not specify the form of notification to the local
community for planning applications at the PAC level. However, over the years,
planning practice in Saint John and in some other communities has led to the circulation
of a notification letter to nearby property owners. The notified property owners are
located within a specified distance from the applicant's property.
In its (guidelines to District Planning Commissions, the Province recommends
notification be sent to all neighbouring property owners within 100 meters of the property
lines of the applicant's parcel in unserviced areas and 60 meters in serviced areas. "i The
notifications should be mailed in a timely manner. A recent APAB decision riled that a
reasonable effort (such as mailing) must be made, but not extraordinary notification. `ii
In this APAB case, the appellant stated he did not receive the courier notice as it was left
"atop the neighbourhood mailbox, but he was not available to pick it up until after the
46
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 33
[RDPC] meeting was held." He claimed that "he was not properly notified, and deprived
of the right to oppose the application." The APAB found that:
... the intent [of the legislation] was to make a reasonable effort to notify
neighbourhood landowners of applications for variances that may impact their
own property. In this case, we believe the process undertaken by the RPDC to
notify the Appellant of the meeting ... was reasonable and complies with the
spirit and intent of the Act. " -'
In Saint John's case, PAC's "Rules of Procedure" call for the notification by mail to
property owners within 100 meters of the applicant's property. In addition, PAC's
"Rules" permits the Commissioner of Planning and Development to circulate the
notification beyond the 100 meters, if the particular application warrants doing so. This
discretion could be significant for specific major or complex projects. For example,
Fredericton's PAC was challenged by the APAB for not extending their notification
distance for a particularly controversial variance. ""° However, this discretion must be
used with care as it leaves the Commissioner open to challenge from citizens and
developers for not notifying more broadly in other cases. The problem is that, in many
situations, planners do not know at the notification stage, what level of controversy a
specific planning application will generate.
Recommendation 16:
The notification radius for all planning applications should be fixed at 100 metres.
The current discretion given to the Commissioner of Planning and Development to
extend this radius should be removed from PAC's "Rules of Procedure."
One stakeholder questioned the validity of the notification letter's wording as it
purportedly "requests people who object to proposals to come forward with their
comments." He suggested the notification letter be modified to also ask for comments
from people and organizations supporting the proposal. This approach would provide a
balanced approach to development proposals and possibly help minimize the adversarial
process at PAC and Council meetings.
Recommendation 17:
Planning and Development should review the wording of the standard notification
letter to ensure it offers a balanced invitation to comment on the planning proposal.
5.3 PAC Process and Procedures
5.3.1 PAC as a Quasi - Judicial Tribunal
PAC members form a quasi - judicial tribunal. Their recommendations to Council and
decisions on minor variances interfere with private property rights. As a quasi - judicial
tribunal, PAC members must avoid being lobbied by individuals and groups on planning
matters prior to a PAC meeting.
As Chair of Fredericton's PAC, I received telephone calls about planning issues coming
before PAC. I pointed out we were a quasi - judicial body and thus I was unable to speak
47
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 34
to the specific case, but I could outline the process for handling the matter at PAC.
Pointing out the "judicial" nature of PAC's deliberations usually led to an abrupt halt to
any lobbying.
Recommendation 18:
As members of a quasi - judicial tribunal, PAC members must avoid being lobbied by
individuals and groups on planning matters.
5.3.2 Appointing Councilors to PAC
Most New Brunswick PACs have council members appointed to serve on the committee.
For example, Fredericton's PAC has nine members, with five citizens and four
councilors. Their PAC is seen as one of the more important of the City's standing
committees with councilors often seeking an appointment to it. Serving on PAC allows
these councilors to immerse themselves in proposed developments so they are at the
forefront of what is occurring in the community. At Fredericton Council meetings, these
councilors are often asked to explain PAC's recommendations, thus providing their
Council colleagues with further background on complex planning issues.
Appointing elected councilors to planning advisory bodies is common in other provinces.
As discussed previously, the norm in many provinces is that Council as a whole serves as
the planning body.
An important benefit in having several councilors on PAC is that the public perceives that
the presentations they make at PAC are being heard by councilors. Hence, they believe
they are not compelled to repeat their presentation at Common Council. In turn, fewer
public presentations expedite Council's handling of planning matters at their meetings.
A few stakeholders were concerned that councilors on PAC would have a conflict of
interest at the Council meeting. This is not the case. The only time councilors on an
advisory committee would have a conflict would be if Council served as an appeal body
to their final decisions. For example, if the Community Planning Act was changed to
make Council the appeal body for PAC's variance decisions, then conflicts could arise.
But this is not the case as appeals to PAC's variance decisions are made directly to the
APAB. PAC's other decisions on applications relating to the Plan, Zoning and Sub-
division By -laws are recommendations to Council.
However, councilors serving on PAC need to understand they are "wearing two hats."
First is as a PAC member where the only factor to consider is the best use of the land.
Second, at Council, this same person may take other, more political, concerns into
consideration. Appointed councilors serving on other PACs, at times, publicly state that
they are voting one way at PAC but may vote differently at Council. The community
appears to understand this subtle difference.
As previously discussed, PAC is required under the Community Planning Act to have a
majority of citizens on the Committee. With its nine members, PAC could have up to
four elected councilors appointed to the Committee.
48
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 35
Almost all stakeholders supported the appointment of additional councilors to PAC to
improve the communication and relationship between the two bodies. One approach
could be to consider appointment of the councilors elected -at -large to PAC given their
broader community mandate.
Recommendation 19:
Common Council should appoint up to four councilors to PAC as vacancies occur
over time.
Despite its statutory status, PAC is a committee of Common Council. All PAC members
are appointed by Council for a fixed term and serve at the pleasure of Council. Sec.
12(2)(c) of the Community Planning Act allows Council by resolution to "remove any
member."
As discussed previously, PAC remains accountable to Common Council with respect to
the implementation of the City's planning legislation. With the exception of minor
variances, it is Council that decides on planning matters after considering PAC's
recommendations. However, PAC does have the right "to advise and make
recommendations" and "to give its views to council ... on any by -law proposed to be
enacted [under the Community Planning Act] ... whether or not such views have been
requested...." (Section 13(b)(c).
The Act also provides that PAC appointments "may be members of the council or
servants of the municipality" (Section 12(3)(a). Thus Common Council could appoint
both elected councilors and staff members to the PAC. The appointment of councilors to
PAC is common in New Brunswick, while the appointment of municipal staff is less so.
At this stage, appointing municipal staff to PAC is not recommended.
5.3.3 Saint John's appointments procedure
PAC appointments should consist of qualified and knowledgeable individuals able to
provide sound planning advice to Common Council. As suggested by stakeholders, such
candidates could be drawn from the related fields of architecture, engineering, surveying,
the business community, constriction, environmental experts and so forth.
On discussing the appointment process with city staff, it was noted that the Common
Clerk receives appointment applications. In some cases, interviews are held and the final
selection made by a committee of councilors. Despite this open approach, the perception
of stakeholders was that the City's appointment process is a "closed shop" — one in which
newcomers to the City would have little opportunity to become involved in civic
government. Recent PAC appointments have gone through a more open process where
advertisements were placed in the newspaper seeking applicants, interviews were held
and two appointments made.
A quick search of the City's web site did not readily reveal information on the procedures
for an appointment to a municipal board or committee. An appointments application
form was eventually found in the "application forms, permits and licenses" section of the
web site. But there is little information to draw a potential applicant to this specific web
49
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 36
page. In comparison, the City of Winnipeg's web site places the request for citizen
appointments to its boards and commissions prominently on its opening page (see:
http://www.winnipeg.ca/interhoiiV).
It is important that public perception of transparency and openness in the Council's
appointment process be maintained. The community should be fully aware of the
process. The appointment application form should be prominently displayed on the
City's web site. In addition, appropriate advertising should encourage this form of
community participation.
Another means of overcoming possible poor public perception of the City's appointment
process would be for Common Council to consider appointing citizen members to
Council's selection committee. As pointed out by Houle and Sossin:
As in other areas of impartiality and independence concerns, the problems in such
settings relates not to evidence of actual conflict or predisposition but the
appearance of potential conflict or predisposition in the eyes of the
community. " ".
Recommendation 20:
The City's appointment process should be reviewed to ensure the public is aware of
their opportunity to apply for an appointment to PAC and other civic bodies.
Appointees to PAC need to be properly briefed and oriented by both the Chair and the
Commissioner of Planning and Development to ensure they understand PAC's mandate
and quasi - judicial function. In addition, the City Clerk's office or the Commissioner
should properly notify PAC members who are not re- appointed by Common Council.
Recommendation 21:
PAC appointees should be properly briefed and oriented on their role and mandate.
In addition, the City Clerk or Commissioner of Planning and Development should
notify PAC members who are not re- appointed by Common Council.
5.3.4 PAC Meeting Location
PAC meetings held in the Council Chambers create an intimidating setting for ordinary
citizens and may discourage open dialogue on planning matters. Several stakeholders
suggested that PAC should meet in a more informal boardroom or committee room where
everyone sits at the same level.
Currently, City Hall does not have a committee room suitable for PAC meetings.
However, this situation may change if Common Council adopts a standing committee
system of governance. In the interim, consideration should be given to holding PAC
meetings in a more informal setting outside of City Hall. For example, a suitable
committee room could be provided at the Trade and Convention Centre. There may be
concerns about providing simultaneous translation at such a PAC meeting. However,
translation services are regularly provided at meetings at the Trade and Convention
Centre, so this should not be an obstacle to relocating PAC meetings there.
50
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 37
Recommendation 22:
To encourage more open public participation in the planning process, PAC should
relocate their meetings from the Council Chambers to a more informal committee
room or boardroom.
5.3.5 PAC's Informal Dinner
PAC has a practice of meeting for a light meal prior to their scheduled meeting. At this
informal setting, they review the meeting agenda and pose questions to staff about the
items to be dealt with at the regular PAC meeting.
Having a meal prior to the regular meeting reflects the reality of a larger city where
commuting time prevents members from traveling home after work and returning for the
meeting. However, the practice of discussing agenda items in this private session with
planning staff is cause for considerable concern.
As previously discussed, PAC is a quasi - judicial tribunal. Hence, applicants should be
apprised of all PAC's oral and written discussion on their cases. Meeting privately prior
to the public session and discussing applications does injustice to an open and transparent
process and contravenes the principles of natural justice.
PAC should always question planning staff in public on their report and
recommendations. There is a benefit in doing this. In complex and controversial
applications, probing the staff report allows PAC members to ask critical questions
before the public presentations. In this manner, PAC members are able to ask questions
that reflect community concerns. If these concerns can be dealt with early on with
comprehensive responses from planning staff, then some members of the public may
have their issues addressed and thus not feel compelled to address PAC. In turn, this step
can save meeting time.
Recommendation 23:
PAC should not be discussing planning matters or applications at the informal
dinner prior to the public session. Concerns and questions for planning staff about
applications and other items on the agenda should raised in public.
On the other hand, the informal pre - meeting dinner provides a good opportunity for
social interaction between the PAC members and planning staff Such interaction
develops trust and overcomes communication barriers, which in turn, leads to a more
open and facilitating PAC meeting.
5.3.6 PAC Seating Arrangement
As discussed above, the community perceives a dysfunctional relationship between
planning staff and PAC. The seating arrangement at the meetings in the Council
Chambers does nothing to dispel this perception.
The PAC Chair and members sit in the Mayor's and councilors' seats while planning
staff are relegated to the front seats at the front of the public gallery. This places the
51
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 38
Chair, Commissioner and planning staff at a disadvantage, as they are unable to
effectively communicate with each other as the meeting progresses. Having the
Commissioner or delegate sit at the right side of the Chair (in the City Manager's seat)
would allow them to interact informally during the meeting. The Commissioner or
delegate could provide a short note to the Chair suggesting steps for dealing with
planning issues as they arise. In addition, the Commissioner or delegate can advise the
Chair on possible terms and conditions and their applicability as well as suggesting other
municipal inter - departmental staff be asked for their input as warranted.
Recommendation 24:
Seating arrangements at PAC meetings should be changed such that the
Commissioner of Planning and Development or delegate sits beside the PAC Chair
to provide advice as required.
5.3.7 PAC Meeting Procedure
Items with representation
Prior to the meeting, planning staff should greet the public to determine the agenda items
in which they are interested. The list of items for which there is representation is then
provided to the PAC Chair at the start of the meeting. The Chair, with support of the
PAC, can modify the agenda to deal with the items that the public has come to participate
in and leave other items without representation until the end. In this manner, the public
and applicants may be able to leave as soon as their particular item has been considered.
Recommendation 25:
Planning staff should identify applicants and others for specific items on the PAC
agenda and notify the Chair at the start of the meeting. The Chair, with PAC's
concurrence, should amend the agenda to deal first with the items having
representation.
Chair's introduction
Each PAC meeting should begin with the Chair informing the public about how the
Committee handles applications. This sets the stage for the Chair's subsequent
interventions should discussion stray off topic or be too lengthy. A suggested format for
this introduction is included in Appendix C.
Recommendation 26:
The Chair should orally present a simple outline of PAC's procedures for handling
each application to the public at the meeting. This allows the Chair to subsequently
intervene to curtail lengthy or irrelevant presentations.
Introducing individual applications
The current PAC practice is for the Chair to read into the record all of the property details
listed on the application cover sheet. This is unnecessary, confusing to the public, and a
52
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 39
misuse of time. The Chair should merely state the agenda number, the applicant's name
and address, and the purpose of the application (plan amendment, change in zoning,
subdivision, or variance).
Recommendation 27:
In introducing each application, the Chair should state the agenda number, the
applicant's name and address and purpose of the application.
Further, for each item, the Chair reads aloud the planner's executive summary and
recommendation. Although this step may expedite the meeting, there are several reasons
why it should not be done.
First and foremost, the public may not understand the intent. Listening to the Chair read
the planners' executive summary and recommendations may lead to a misunderstanding
that the Committee has already come to a conclusion on the application, thus the rest of
the session is merely rhetorical. Although this perception is erroneous, it could lead to
difficulties for PAC from the community's standpoint.
Second, the planners, not PAC, become responsible and accountable for their reports and
recommendations. Third, the planners can add to their synopsis to provide further
information to the public about the application prior to their participation at the meeting.
Fourth, asking each planner to provide a synopsis of their report provides the meeting
different voices. This, in turn, improves overall communication and participation at the
meeting.
Recommendation 28:
Planning staff should provide a verbal synopsis for each application at the PAC
meeting.
Planning staff reports
The planners' reports provide a comprehensive analysis of each application. This
analysis includes discussion on how the proposal conforms to the City's current planning
legislation, critical inputs from inter - departmental and agency sources, impacts on the
neighbouring community, and a firm recommendation with proposed conditions for
approval, if appropriate. These reports conform to the quality standards of planning staff
reports at other municipalities.
Reading the fiill report aloud for each application would be very time consuming and
inappropriate. Fortunately, each planning report has an executive summary along with a
recommendation. In many cases, providing a verbal synopsis of the application based on
the executive summary at the PAC meeting will be sufficient. However, in specific
applications where there is a known community concern or other factors, selected
portions of the staff report could be added to the synopsis.
For example, in the Tannery Court application discussed at the October 21st PAC
meeting, supplementing the executive summary with the report's paragraph on the need
53
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 40
for a large parking variance would have been helpful for the public. They would have
heard the reason for this variance at the beginning of the meeting rather than being forced
to question and probe to find the reason.
As discussed above, PAC members should question planning staff on their
recommendations and the report's contents in public (not at the PAC's informal meal).
The Chair should not lead in questioning staff, but rather allow PAC members to pose
questions. If some issues have not been covered, the Chair could cover the gap with his
questions. This approach allows the Chair to focus on maintaining order, keeping the
meeting on track and operating within its defined procedures.
Chairing PAC meetings
Besides the normal functions of a Chair, the role of the incumbent is to expedite the
Committee's procedures, maintain order, and ensure the members and the public has a
reasonable opportunity to voice their opinions. Since all discussion and debate flows
through the Chair, the incumbent is necessarily attentive to the process being followed.
The Chair should not engage in debate with PAC members or the public. Robert's Rules
of Order outlines the procedure for vacating the Chair if the incumbent wishes to engage
in the debate as follows:
The chairman sometimes calls a member to the chair and takes part in the debate.
This should rarely be done, and nothing can justify it in a case where much
feeling is shown and there is a liability to difficulty in preserving order. If the
chairman has even the appearance of being a partisan, he loses much of his ability
to control those who are on the opposite side of the question. There is nothing to
justify the unfortunate habit some chairmen have of constantly speaking on
questions before the assembly, even interrupting the member who has the floor.
One who expects to take an active part in debate should never accept the chair, or
at least should not resume the chair, after having made his speech, until after the
pending question is disposed of The presiding officer of a large assembly should
never be chosen for any reason except his ability to preside.'....'
Recommendation 29:
The PAC Chair should conform to Robert's Rules of Order and refrain from
entering the debate on any application before the Committee.
Setting limits on public presentations
The public participation process held by the PAC is not the statutory hearing mandated
by the Community Planning Act — the one held by Common Council is the required one.
This means that PAC can implement discipline on presentations being made at their
meetings by:
• limiting speakers to 5 minutes or less,
• seeking a spokesperson or two to speak on behalf of a larger delegation,
within a limited time period,
54
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 41
• restricting the number of speakers in a given delegation,
• constraining the discussion on a given application by a delegation of speakers
to a set time, say one hour or less,
• curbing the repetition of the same argument by multiple presenters, and
• confining the discussion to issues relevant to land use, by riling out of order
irrelevant arguments.
These presentation riles should be published in advance and reiterated in the Chair's
introduction at the beginning of the meeting. The Chair then needs to enforce these
restrictions consistently and fairly.
There are many occasions when a Chair has to politely steer presenters away from
irrelevant issues — common irrelevant issues include how the project may affect property
taxes or competition with other businesses or who are the future users. Taxes, economic
competition and future users are not matters for PAC consideration, although they may
concern Council.
PAC is expected to only consider land use planning issues, not potential users nor the
economic benefits or costs of development. The Chair can readily and politely rile other
discussion out of order. As an example, the APAB has riled that DPCs (and PACs) must
focus on land use issues:
Where we disagree with the [district planning] commission members is that
notwithstanding the neighbourhood concerns about congested student housing...
their decision must be based upon planning principle — the "desirable for the
development of the land" principle. While they are right to listen to
neighbourhood concerns, the Act imposes on them the responsibility to make
decisions based on the best use of the land (emphasis added).'''`"
Recommendation 30:
PAC should amend their "Rules of Procedure" to incorporate reasonable time limits
on applicant and public presentations to the Committee. In addition, the Chair
should enforce reasonable limits on repetition and irrelevant issues.
These steps to expedite PAC's handling of complex and often contentious planning
applications have been successfully used in other communities. Applicants and others
attending the proceedings believe the planning applications were handled fairly and
openly. Further, within the established riles of procedure, everyone had ample
opportunity to present their points of view.
Public presentations
The formal PAC Chair's ritual of calling out three times: "is there anyone present who
wishes to speak in favour" and "is there anyone who wishes to speak against the project"
is intimidating for citizens. PAC as a quasi - judicial tribunal requires some formal
stricture, but it is also meant to be a venue for dialogue and discussion that is less
imposing than that found in a courtroom.
55
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 42
There is no need for this formal approach in seeking public involvement. A softer, more
appropriate approach would be to ask: "is there anyone who wishes to speak to this
application ?" Repeating this phrase during the public presentation portion of the meeting
gives others, who initially were not ready, with an opportunity to speak. Although it may
be convenient to have a regular order to the presentations (i.e. those in favour first and
those opposed second), this is not essential for the PAC's decision - making.
Recommendation 31:
PAC's "Rules of Procedure" should be modified to allow the Chair to encourage
public participation by seeking input in a friendly and less formal manner.
PAC decision - making process
The normal procedure for each case is that the applicant, if in attendance, is called first,
to present their case, if they wish. The applicant is followed by public presentations.
After the public session, PAC may recall the applicant to respond to further questions
from PAC members. Inevitably in a complex or controversial planning proposal, the
public will ask various, often irrelevant, questions. PAC members must exercise careful
judgment to ensure only relevant land use related questions are asked of the applicant.
At this stage, having received all of the information required, PAC is able to publicly
discuss the merits and pitfalls of the application. The discussion must focus on land use,
not other irrelevant matters. For example, in the October 21st meeting on the Tannery
Court application, much of the discourse dealt with social housing policy, which is not
PAC's purview. However, since PAC recessed behind closed doors for a discussion on
the Tannery Court application, the public has no knowledge of what factors the
Committee considered in making their decision.
Taking a recess implies a "break" in the proceedings, not an "in- camera" private
discussion of the matter being debated. Despite this, PAC chooses to go into such private
sessions to discuss controversial planning applications. This is contrary to the principles
of natural justice. As discussed previously, the applicant is entitled to know how PAC
reached its decision and the factors they considered.
There are several issues that relate to PAC's "private" discussion sessions. First, as one
stakeholder pointed out, it "is offensive to people in attendance. I continually hear this
when I am sitting in the chambers ... the perception is not good." Other stakeholders
also raised concerns about the efficacy of this practice.
Second, the approach is contrary to Provincial policy as outlined in A (guideline on the
Conduct of District Planning Commission Meetings:
All regular monthly meetings shall be open to the public. The meetings will be
closed when dealing with legal and personnel issues. All other deliberations will
be open to the public except voting periods.'...."'
The Provincial policy states that all deliberations on a planning application must be done
in public. Voting in private only occurs in extra - ordinary circumstances.
56
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 43
Gary Meresereau, Manager of the Community Planning Section stated that the Province
allows DPCs to vote behind closed doors due to the relatively small size of their
communities. In smaller communities, grudges and conflicts may arise among close
neighbours. However, in larger urban centres, such as Saint John, this is not the case. "'"
As a Council appointed committee, PAC should be bound to the same riles as Common
Council on meeting in a private or closed session. The Saint John Council Procedural
By -law establishes that closed sessions can only be held in conformance with the
provisions of the New Brunswick Municipalities Act as follows:
10.2(4) If it is necessary at a meeting of a council or a committee of council to
discuss any of the following matters, the public may be excluded from the
meeting for the duration of the discussion:
(a) information the confidentiality of which is protected by law;
(b) personal information;
(c) information that could cause financial loss or gain to a person or the
municipality or could jeopardize negotiations leading to an agreement or contract;
(d) the proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land for a municipal
purpose;
(e) information that could violate the confidentiality of information obtained from
the Government of Canada or from the Province;
(f) information concerning legal opinions or advice provided to the municipality
by a municipal solicitor, or privileged communications as between solicitor and
client in a matter of municipal business;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality or any of its
agencies, boards or commissions, including a matter before an administrative
tribunal;
(h) the access to or security of particular buildings, other strictures or systems,
including computer or communication systems, or the access to or security of
methods employed to protect such buildings, other strictures or systems;
(i) information gathered by police, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
in the course of investigating any illegal activity or suspected illegal activity, or
the source of such information; or
0) labour and employment matters, including the negotiation of collective
agreements.
It is apparent from this list that PAC should only be meeting in a closed session for a
limited number of reasons, such as: obtaining legal opinion from the City Solicitor, and
personnel matters related to municipal staff All other discussion regarding planning
applications must take place at the public PAC meeting.
57
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 44
Recommendation 32:
PAC should amend its "Rules of Procedures" to define the specific matters that
allow the Committee to meet in closed "in- camera" session. Such matters include
receiving legal opinion from the City Solicitor and personnel issues. All other PAC
business must be conducted in open, public session.
When PAC chooses to go into closed session, the secretary and planning staff should be
present (unless it is a direct personnel matter regarding a specific planning staff member).
This will ensure the minutes of the closed session are kept in accordance with the
Municipalities Act:
Section 10.2(6) If a meeting is closed to the public pursuant to subsection (4), a
record shall be made containing only the following:
(a) the type of matter under subsection (4) that was discussed during the meeting;
and
(b) the date of the meeting.
The Municipalities Act is also clear with respect to the limited decisions PAC can make
in closed session:
10.2(5) If a meeting of a committee of council is closed to the public pursuant to
subsection (4), no decisions shall be made at the meeting except for decisions
related to:
(a) procedural matters,
(b) directions to an officer of the municipality, or
(c) directions to a solicitor for the municipality.
Thus it is clear that planning applications as such should not be discussed in closed
session. Further, no new information relating to a planning application can be introduced
in the closed session. As pointed out in several APAB decisions, it is patently unfair to
the applicant to introduce information to which they are not privy and cannot defend
against. For example, in the case of Clark v. Royal District Planning Commission, the
APAB riled:
Although Mr. Clark had a fair and reasonable opportunity to present his case
before the commission on September 18, 2007, we note that he and the
development officer left the meeting so the members (we presume), could discuss
the matter and vote in private.
Although we do not encourage this process (where discussion and voting takes
place in the absence of the applicant), this particular hearing is troubling since the
Minutes of the meeting reflect that the Director, John Baird, spoke against the
variance application after a motion had been made to reject the Staff Report and
approve the variance.
58
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 45
This would be manifestly unfair as Mr. Clark is not aware further representations
are made contrary to his interest after he has left the room and has no opportunity
to reply. In and of itself, this would be a breach of the principles of fairness and
natural justice, which apply to all administrative Board and Tribunals.'i
PAC's current practice of recessing and discussing applications during their meetings
contravenes Provincial policy. In accordance with the principles of natural justice and
riles of administrative law, the applicant and other parties have the right to be apprised of
all aspects relating to the application. The APAB has upheld this right in several rulings,
for example:
The meetings held by the RDPC at which they discuss and decide matters which
affect private property, are subject to the basic procedural guidelines of
administrative law in Canada. Fundamental to these are the right of disclosure of
the case to be met, the right to be present while evidence is presented, the right to
present one's case and the right to be informed of the reasons for a decision....
there is a ditty upon the commission to provide a reason ft)i- their decision, as this
allows parties to see that all issues and facts have been carefully considered
(emphasis added). "'
By discussing applications in private, voting in public and not maintaining minutes of the
discussion, PAC is exposing itself for potentially successful appeals to its decisions. The
APAB has grave concerns about the lack of minutes of such private discussions as
outlined in Harrison Lewis v. Greater Moncton Planning District Commission:
Once again, the Board finds itself in the position of not having evidence for the
reason the commissioners came to the decision they did. There is a vast
difference between a decision, and the reasons for the decision....
You have a recommendation made by Staff, which is rejected by the commission,
but there are no reasons given in the minutes of the meeting to explain the reasons
for the decision, and at the appeal hearing, none of the commissioners present
themselves to be questioned or to explain the reasons for the decisions.
How in the world is the Board to adjudicate the important issue of the process
followed by the commission if there is no evidence to show how they came to
their decision, what documents they saw, or did not see, what did they consider,
etc. ?'i"
The APAB goes further in this case to state:
This is not to question the jurisdiction of the planning commissions. The purpose
of Sec. 35(b) of the Community Planning Act is clear....
However, this is not an unfettered discretionary power. As an administrative
body exercising quasi - judicial functions, and in particular where that body is
making decisions which affect such an important matter as the use of private
property, the planning commission has the responsibility to provide a clear reason
as to why they chose to restrict those rights.'i"'
59
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 46
Recommendation 33:
If PAC does meet in closed session, the Secretary and relevant planning staff should
be present to take minutes and address procedural issues, which may arise.
Setting terms and conditions
Many stakeholders raised concerns that PAC is setting terms and conditions to planning
application approvals without sufficient input from planning staff As discussed
previously, this practice may lead to Council having to change onerous conditions set by
PAC and it can cause delays as Building Inspection insists on all conditions being met
before a building permit is issued. This latter problem could be resolved, in part, by
Building Inspection issuing permits in phases (such as a foundation permit)
The APAB raised concerns about the efficacy of appointed commissioners (and by
extension, PAC members) taking it upon themselves to act without planning staff input or
in rejecting staff recommendations:
Even if it were the responsibility of the commission member to look at alternate
uses when there is a variance application before them (and that is a highly dubious
proposition), they should not have embarked upon such an expedition without
staff input ....
Must the TPDC follow staff recommendations? No, but we would expect to hear
substantive reasons why they do not.'i'°
As discussed previously, the PAC should seek planning staff advice during their
deliberations including setting or changing planning application approval terms and
conditions.
Recommendation 34:
PAC should not set terms and conditions for approved planning applications
without seeking planning advice at the meeting.
Absent applicants
A concern raised by many stakeholders is PAC's current requirement that if applicants
are not present at the meeting, their applications are tabled until they are available.
Although such a step is admirable from a "fairness" perspective, it is unnecessary. There
is no legislation forcing applicants to attend PAC or Council meetings dealing with their
application. Although attendance is advisable, it is the applicant's choice whether or not
to attend.
Tabling such applications adds to planning staff workload and inconveniences citizens
who may have attended the meeting to hear the case. Planning staff will need to re-
circulate the notification letter to the nearby property owners. Notified citizens may feel
there is a need to come to the subsequent meeting due to an apparent complexity of the
item (since PAC tabled it for reconsideration). They may then decide to attend and speak
.f
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 47
at the second PAC meeting, when they had not done so at the first meeting. Tabling
absentee applicants' cases contributes further to time spent at PAC meetings.
Recommendation 35:
PAC should handle all applications on their agenda whether or not applicants are
present at the meeting.
Written decisions
Applicants have a right to know the basis of a PAC decision. This right should be
respected by providing in writing: the Committee's decision, the reasons for it, and
information on the applicant's right of appeal to the APAB. If there is full public
discussion of the application, then a copy of the relevant minutes outlining the rationale
for the decision may suffice. As pointed out by the APAB:
... there is a duty upon the commission to provide a reason for their decision, as
this allows parties to see that all the issues and facts have been carefully
considered. These reasons must be delivered to the parties in writing and are the
only way a party could properly assess whether an appeal should be lodged. "' -
Recommendation 36:
PAC and planning staff should provide a written copy of decisions and the reasons
for them to applicants. This letter should include information on their right to
appeal PAC's decision.
5.4 Common Council Meetings
Saint John Common Council's meeting procedures are well defined in By -Law M -5, A
By -Law Respecting The Procedures of the Common Council. Sec. 10 outlines the
procedures for "Delegations /Presentations" in which delegations and speakers must pre -
register and submit a copy of their presentation to the Common Clerk four days prior to
the regular Council meeting. In addition, presentations to Common Council are limited
to 15 minutes. Although Council's Procedures By -law sets time limits for presentations
and requires the submission of presentations four days prior to the Council meeting,
stakeholders pointed out that this constraint seems to be rarely enforced.
To better control their meetings, Common Council, through the Presiding Officer, the
Mayor, should ensure the Rules of Procedure are followed with respect to presentation
submissions prior to the Council meeting, and should consistently enforce time limits on
presentations. For example, in Ottawa, presenters coming before Council have a large
flat screen monitor in front of them which, in very large numerals, counts down the time
remaining for their presentation. The Mayor of Ottawa consistently enforces the time set
for each presentation.
A further option for Common Council to consider is limiting the presentation time even
further. As discussed previously and outlined in Table 3, many other municipalities limit
presentations to five minutes.
AN
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 48
Recommendation 37:
Common Council should enforce its current 15- minute time limit for presentations
to Council and consider reducing the presentation time to 5- minutes.
Council's public hearing on Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law amendments is a
statutory requirement under the Community Planning Act. As such, the Council may not
have PAC's discretion in setting further limits to planning related presentations. A legal
review is needed to determine whether or not Common Council can establish other
presentation limits, such as:
• limiting speakers to 5 minutes or less,
• restricting the number of speakers in a given delegation,
• constraining the discussion on a given application by a delegation of speakers
to a set time, say one -half hour,
• curbing the repetition of the same argument by multiple presenters, and
• confining the discussion to issues relevant to land use, by riling out of order
irrelevant arguments.
As discussed previously, appointing councilors to PAC may help to reduce the number of
Council presentations on planning matters
Recommendation 38:
The Common Clerk and City Solicitor should review Common Council's
Procedures By -Law to determine whether additional limits can be incorporated on
delegations and presentations on planning matters.
As discussed previously, Common Council, like PAC, serves as a quasi - judicial tribunal
in making decisions on land use planning matters. This means councilors should not be
pre judging a planning proposal or application before all evidence is provided to them.
In other words, as some stakeholders pointed out, councilors should not be taking
positions nor making public statements on their objections to or support for any planning
matter until after Council in session has deliberated and decided on the issue.
Further, as members of a quasi - judicial tribunal, care must be taken by councilors to
prevent lobbying individuals or groups on planning matters prior to the Council session
where the issue is to be decided.
Recommendation 39:
As members of a quasi - judicial tribunal, Council members should not be pre-
judging or publicly commenting on a planning proposal or application until after
the matter has been dealt with by Council in session.
62
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 49
5.5 Community Participation
5.5.1 Electronic gateway
Increasingly, the public is seeking information about the City and planning matters on-
line. Thus, it is important for the City to improve its web site to enhance community
access. A review of other municipal web sites revealed significant differences between
them and Saint John. In most cases, planning documents were available on -line for
downloading to the applicant. In other, more sophisticated situations, planning
documents were available for electronic submission and processing. However, one of the
difficulties facing Saint John in mounting planning material on its web site is the need for
a bilingual format. While this is not technically difficult, it does add to the cost and time
required for mounting the material.
A key feature on many municipal web sites is a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page.
A number of the common questions asked of Planning and Development could be placed
on a FAQ page. This step could reduce the number of calls and visits by citizens seeking
basic planning information.
Similarly, having the Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law and their accompanying maps
easily available on -line may reduce calls from lawyers and real estate agents seeking the
planning status of individual properties. They could easily obtain this information by
accessing access relevant maps.
Recommendation 40:
Planning and Development, in cooperation with other municipal departments,
should upgrade their on -line web presence to provide a FAQ page and
downloadable planning documentation in a bilingual format.
5.5.2 Interactive public participation
The next stage in developing an electronic gateway is to develop an interactive capacity
for planning matters. In 2000 -02, a UNBF graduate student researched the use of an
interactive web site for controversial planning proposals in Saint John and other
municipalities. Rima Ammouri's research provided up -to -date mapping and related
planning material on an interactive web site for community participation. Her interactive
research sites included planning projects in Saint John, Oromocto and Fredericton.'i°'
Ammouri's research found that the interactive sites increased public engagement and
understanding in these specific planning projects. Unfortunately, this electronic
democracy capability was not retained by Saint John (nor, by the other municipalities).
However, as web capabilities continue to improve, Planning and Development should be
on the forefront in developing on -line interactive public participation tools for major and
complex planning proposals. This step will enhance citizen engagement and
understanding, which will, in turn, lead to expedited PAC and Common Council
deliberations on planning matters.
63
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process so
Recommendation 41:
Planning and Development should develop an on -line interactive public
participation process to encourage a bilingual community dialogue and discussion
on major and complex planning proposals.
5.5.3 Policy manuals and other publications
Many stakeholders suggested that Planning and Development and other relevant
departments should prepare comprehensive written policy and procedures manuals to
assist in land development projects. Such manuals should include new and enhanced
standards for development such as landscaping, tree planting, and design aesthetics as
well as engineering and utility standards. As discussed previously, many municipalities
have developed such manuals. They are generally available on -line in an electronic
download form and as hard copy.
Recommendation 42:
Planning and Development, Engineering and other related departments should
develop and publish appropriate bilingual policy and procedures manuals and
design guidelines to assist and guide the development industry.
5.6 City Manager
The Saint John City Manager serves a crucial role by ensuring coordination and
cooperation among municipal units. This review revealed that there are some internal
attitudinal difficulties in supporting land and economic development. The City Manager
can aid in overcoming these negative attitudes by encouraging all departments and
divisions to cooperate in ensuring appropriate land and economic development is
supported.
This review recommends that action to support land and economic development be taken
by several municipal departments beyond Planning and Development. These inter-
departmental actions need to be supported and coordinated by the City Manager and his
staff including:
• having appropriate senior staff from Engineering, Leisure and Recreational
Services and other departments attend regular PAC meetings,
• ensuring the proposed regular inter - departmental planning review committee
meetings are attended and supported,
• reviewing the planning application fee stricture,
• setting, as a priority, the development of enhanced standards and procedures
for land development and publishing them in appropriate bilingual manuals
(on -line and in hard copy),
• overseeing improvements to the City's appointment process for boards,
committees and commissions,
64
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 51
• ensuring the City's web site and departmental web pages are updated to
include easily accessible FAQs and down - loadable documents in an
appropriate bilingual format, and
• ensuring there is a review of Common Council's meeting procedures to
determine whether further limits may be placed on delegations and
presentations on planning matters.
5.7 Education and Training
Many of the steps suggested and recommended in this review require education and
training for staff, PAC and councilors. For example, many stakeholders suggested PAC
members need an orientation session on their appointment along with refresher sessions.
These sessions should include discussion on PAC's mandate, role, planning principles,
the City's planning legislation and policies, planning implications from other municipal
departments, and so forth. As pointed out by Whitaker, Gottheil and Uhlmann:
Like the courts, tribunals are increasingly placing an emphasis on both initial and
ongoing training for adjudicators. This includes not only formal training and
instruction about hearing process, evidence, and the principles of administrative
law but extends to continuing updates on the developments in law and policy
within the particular tribunal....
It is not unusual for a tribunal to have regularly scheduled training sessions for all
adjudicators, but also to have designated training officers responsible for
supporting and dispensing educational material to adjudicators on a regular — even
daily basis.
The Province's Community Planning Section provides education and training sessions for
district planning commissions. Given the Provincial interest in supporting effective land
use planning as reflected in the Community Planning Act, it would be appropriate for the
Community Planning Section to arrange for similar, suitable sessions for members of all
PACs. The New Brunswick Association of Planners, Atlantic Planners Institute and Law
Society of New Brunswick could assist the Province in developing and delivering land
use planning and policy related topics.
Recommendation 43:
The City of Saint John should encourage the Provincial Government through its
Community Planning Section to provide education and training opportunities for
PAC members on a regular basis.
Besides, the generalities that a provincially sponsored process would provide, Saint John
has specific educational needs for PAC members and municipal staff on planning policy,
procedures and projects. Some of the education may be offered on an informal basis such
as providing relevant updates to PAC and others on evolving provincial policy, recent
APAB decisions, material from current planning literature and so forth. Planning and
Development and the City Solicitor should provide orientation for new PAC appointees
65
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 52
routinely. In addition, PAC should have regular updating and refresher sessions with
selected municipal staff and municipal councilors.
Recommendation 44:
Planning and Development should provide orientation sessions for newly appointed
PAC members as well as offering educational sessions for PAC, Council, and other
inter - departmental staff on relevant planning matters.
Beyond PAC, Council and staff, planning education and training should be provided to
the community. Currently Calgary, Saskatoon and Ottawa offer periodic half -day
planning education sessions for all members of the public including developers, real
estate agents, lawyers, builders and community representatives. The Ottawa planning
education process began in 2007 and involves a series of individual education sessions
involving such topics as:
• legislative background and planning policy documents,
• development approvals,
• urban design,
• heritage planning,
• rural planning, and
• the Ontario Municipal Board.
The Ottawa education process provides a "Certificate of Completion" to individuals who
complete four of their courses. Some thirty certificates have been awarded to date.'i°"
Planning and Development in partnership with their peers in Moncton and Fredericton
could develop a similar planning education program for their respective communities.
Involving the two other major New Brunswick cities would allow sharing of course
development. Public planning courses and supporting educational material from Calgary,
Saskatoon and Ottawa could also provide a foundation for relevant New Brunswick
public planning courses.
Recommendation 45:
Planning and Development, in partnership with planning departments in Moncton
and Fredericton, should investigate the feasibility of offering planning education
sessions for the general public including developers, real estate agents, lawyers,
builders and community representatives.
0
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 53
6. Conclusions
As identified in this review, there are problems with Saint John's planning process. Land
use planning and development procedures are effective but need modification to improve
and expedite planning applications through the Department, PAC and Common Council.
This review addressed many concerns raised by stakeholders. The most significant issue
is the time PAC and Common Council spend on dealing with planning applications at
their respective meetings. Several steps are proposed to expedite planning approvals
without sacrificing valued public input, including:
• setting reasonable time limits for presentations by the applicant, public and
delegations,
• limiting the repetition of points previously raised by others, and
• focusing the discussion at PAC and Council on matters relevant to land use
planning.
Changing PAC's meeting schedule to a monthly basis along with steps to expedite the
meetings will provide time for planning staff to work with applicants to improve the
overall quality of development in Saint John. Reducing rapid turnaround time for
planning applications increases interaction between planning and other municipal staff,
further enhancing the quality of planning and development applications.
Stakeholders raised many concerns about the apparent dysfunctional relationship between
PAC and planning staff, and between PAC and Common Council. There is a need for
education and training for all on the respective roles and mandates of PAC, planning staff
and Council. A formalized education program for PAC, Councilors, and municipal staff
along with the general public will help to improve overall effective communication.
Stakeholders raised concerns about some negative attitudinal problems amongst
municipal staff (other than Planning and Development) with respect to developers. All
municipal staff must understand the contributions of major land development investments
and their beneficial impact on the City's economy and quality of life.
This review recommends appointing councilors to PAC as opportunities arise. Having
councilors on PAC builds a bridge to Common Council; improving communications and
the relationship between these two important planning bodies. Orientation and regular
education and training sessions for PAC members and councilors will further improve the
City's planning approval processes.
Increasingly the public is seeking planning and other municipal information on -line. This
review recommends improving and updating the City's web site and Planning and
Development's web pages to provide easier bilingual access to relevant planning
information and documentation.
67
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 54
7. Implementation
This review makes many recommendations to expedite and improve Saint John's
planning process. Many of the recommendations involve procedural changes that are
beyond Planning and Development's jurisdiction such as making appropriate
amendments to PAC's "Rules of Procedure" and Common Council's Procedural By -law
as well as the report's implications for other municipal departments.
The only way to implement the many changes recommended in this review is for
Common Council to take responsibility for directing that they be made. The normal
procedure is for Common Council to request the City Manager, PAC and Planning and
Development to provide written comments on the recommendations and suggestions
contained within this review. Further the City Manager and PAC should report to
Common Council on a suitable implementation plan to achieve an improved planning
process for Saint John.
Recommendation 46:
Common Council should adopt this review and request written comments and a
suggested implementation plan from the City Manager, PAC, and Planning and
Development.
..
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 55
8. List of Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
Additional staff is required for Planning and Development to enable it to meet
Common Council's goals of updating the Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law. A
minimum of two professional planners, a planning technician and additional front
office support is required.
Recommendation 2:
Applicants should be required to submit scalable drawings of their proposed
projects, rather than depending on planning staff to prepare them.
Recommendation 3:
The Planning Advisory Committee should meet on a monthly basis. Steps need to
be taken to improve the efficiency of handling planning applications at PAC
meetings to permit setting monthly meetings.
Recommendation 4:
Planning and Development should initiate and facilitate pre - application
consultation meetings with developers and other relevant City staff for proposed
complex and /or major projects.
Recommendation 5:
Planning and Development should encourage developers of major and complex
projects to hold community information meetings prior to appearing before PAC.
Some staff support, as appropriate should be provided to developers in arranging
community information meetings.
Recommendation 6:
Planning staff should review planning and development application forms available
from other municipalities to develop appropriate modifications for updating the
City's planning application forms.
Recommendation 7:
Incomplete planning applications should not be processed. The current planning
application form should be amended to allow development officers to sign their
approval of complete applications prior to review and evaluation.
.•
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 56
Recommendation 8:
The City Manager in conjunction with Planning and Development should review
planning application fees to determine whether or not a variable fee structure is
appropriate for complex and major development projects.
Recommendation 9:
Following the introduction of monthly PAC meetings, Planning and Development
should convene and facilitate regular monthly inter - departmental planning review
committee meetings to evaluate all planning applications.
Recommendation 10:
The City Manager should ensure relevant municipal departments provide
representation to the inter - departmental planning review committee.
Recommendation 11:
Additional professional staff is required to supplement and support Engineering's
critical role in reviewing, evaluating and processing planning and development
applications.
Recommendation 12:
The City Manager and City Engineer should consider relocating key personnel to
City Hall, at least on a part -time basis, to improve inter - departmental interaction
and communication relating to planning matters.
Recommendation 13:
Appropriate senior staff person from Engineering and Leisure Services should
attend the monthly PAC meetings as a resource to the Committee.
Recommendation 14:
Planning staff should be prepared to provide terms and conditions for applications
that they have recommended for denial.
Recommendation 15:
When PAC decides to overturn a planning staff recommendation the Committee
should ensure there is adequate discussion for the minutes to provide clear reasons
for the decision. When this situation occurs, staff should be given the opportunity to
comment.
Recommendation 16:
The notification radius for all planning applications should be fixed at 100 metres.
The current discretion given to the Commissioner of Planning and Development to
extend this radius should be removed from PAC's "Rules of Procedure."
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 57
Recommendation 17:
Planning and Development should review the wording of the standard notification
letter to ensure it offers a balanced invitation to comment on the planning proposal.
Recommendation 18:
As members of a quasi - judicial tribunal, PAC members must avoid being lobbied by
individuals and groups on planning matters.
Recommendation 19:
Common Council should appoint up to four councilors to PAC as vacancies occur
over time.
Recommendation 20:
The City's appointment process should be reviewed to ensure the public is aware of
their opportunity to apply for an appointment to PAC and other civic bodies.
Recommendation 21:
PAC appointees should be properly briefed and oriented on their role and mandate.
In addition, the City Clerk or Commissioner of Planning and Development should
notify PAC members who are not re- appointed by Common Council.
Recommendation 22:
To encourage more open public participation in the planning process, PAC should
relocate their meetings from the Council Chambers to a more informal committee
room or boardroom.
Recommendation 23:
PAC should not be discussing planning matters or applications at the informal
dinner prior to the public session. Concerns and questions for planning staff about
applications and other items on the agenda should raised in public.
Recommendation 24:
Seating arrangements at PAC meetings should be changed such that the
Commissioner of Planning and Development or delegate sits beside the PAC Chair
to provide advice as required.
Recommendation 26:
The Chair should orally present a simple outline of PAC's procedures for handling
each application to the public at the meeting. This allows the Chair to subsequently
intervene to curtail lengthy or irrelevant presentations.
FA
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 58
Recommendation 27:
In introducing each application, the Chair should state the agenda number, the
applicant's name and address and purpose of the application.
Recommendation 28:
Planning staff should provide a verbal synopsis for each application at the PAC
meeting.
Recommendation 29:
The PAC Chair should conform to Robert's Rules of Order and refrain from
entering the debate on any application before the Committee.
Recommendation 30:
PAC should amend their "Rules of Procedure" to incorporate reasonable time limits
on applicant and public presentations to the Committee. In addition, the Chair
should enforce reasonable limits on repetition and irrelevant issues.
Recommendation 31:
PAC's "Rules of Procedure" should be modified to allow the Chair to encourage
public participation by seeking input in a friendly and less formal manner.
Recommendation 32:
PAC should amend its "Rules of Procedures" to define the specific matters that
allow the Committee to meet in closed "in- camera" session. Such matters include
receiving legal opinion from the City Solicitor and personnel issues. All other PAC
business must be conducted in open, public session.
Recommendation 33:
If PAC does meet in closed session, the Secretary and relevant planning staff should
be present to take minutes and address procedural issues, which may arise.
Recommendation 34:
PAC should not set terms and conditions for approved planning applications
without seeking planning advice at the meeting.
Recommendation 35:
PAC should handle all applications on their agenda whether or not applicants are
present at the meeting.
72
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 59
Recommendation 36:
PAC and planning staff should provide a written copy of decisions and the reasons
for them to applicants. This letter should include information on their right to
appeal PAC's decision.
Recommendation 37:
Common Council should enforce its current 15- minute time limit for presentations
to Council and consider reducing the presentation time to 5- minutes.
Recommendation 38:
The Common Clerk and City Solicitor should review Common Council's
Procedures By -Law to determine whether additional limits can be incorporated on
delegations and presentations on planning matters.
Recommendation 39:
As members of a quasi - judicial tribunal, Council members should not be pre-
judging or publicly commenting on a planning proposal or application until after
the matter has been dealt with by Council in session.
Recommendation 40:
Planning and Development, in cooperation with other municipal departments,
should upgrade their on -line web presence to provide a FAQ page and
downloadable planning documentation in a bilingual format.
Recommendation 41:
Planning and Development should develop an on -line interactive public
participation process to encourage a bilingual community dialogue and discussion
on major and complex planning proposals.
Recommendation 42:
Planning and Development, Engineering and other related departments should
develop and publish appropriate bilingual policy and procedures manuals and
design guidelines to assist and guide the development industry.
Recommendation 43:
The City of Saint John should encourage the Provincial Government through its
Community Planning Section to provide education and training opportunities for
PAC members on a regular basis.
73
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 60
Recommendation 44:
Planning and Development should provide orientation sessions for newly appointed
PAC members as well as offering educational sessions for PAC, Council, and other
inter - departmental staff on relevant planning matters.
Recommendation 45:
Planning and Development, in partnership with planning departments in Moncton
and Fredericton, should investigate the feasibility of offering planning education
sessions for the general public including developers, real estate agents, lawyers,
builders and community representatives.
Recommendation 46:
Common Council should adopt this review and request written comments and a
suggested implementation plan from the City Manager, PAC, and Planning and
Development.
74
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 61
Appendix A - Interviews
Developers
Mike Baldwin, Saint John Waterfront Development (October 23, 2008)
Brian Cunningham, Q M Construction (October 22, 2008)
Bob Darling, Darling Constriction, Saint John (October 22, 2008)
Bill MacMacKin, Saint John Waterfront Development (October 23, 2008)
Troy Northrup, Northrup Group, Saint John (October 21, 2008)
Peter A. Pappas, Summit Real Estate, Saint John (October 21, 2008)
John Rocca, Rocca Constriction, Saint John (October 28, 2008)
Charlie Swanton, Saint John Waterfront Development (October 23, 2008)
Rick Turner, Hughes Surveying, Saint John (October 23, 2008)
John B. Wheatley, John B. Wheatley & Associates, Rothesay (October 21, 2008)
Community Development
Imelda Gilman, President, Saint John Board of Trade (October 29, 2008)
Randy Hatfield, Human Development Council, Saint John (October 22, 2008)
Kit Hickey, Housing Alternatives, Saint John (October 24, 2008)
Ross Jefferson, Benefits Blueprint, Saint John (October 22, 2008)
Saint John Municipal Officials
Mayor Ivan Court, Saint John (October 22, 2008)
Councilor Carl Killen (October 22, 2008)
Councilor Peter McQuire (October 27, 2008)
Terry Totten, City Manager, Saint John (October 23, 2008)
Andrew Beckett, Deputy City Manager, Saint John (October 21, 2008)
Paul Groody, Commissioner of Engineering, Saint John (February 25, 2009)
Ken Forrest, Commissioner of Planning and Development, Saint John (October 24, 2008)
Patrick Foran, Planning Officer (October 21, 2008)
Mark O'Hearn, Planning Officer (October 21, 2008)
Sarah Herring, Planner(October 21, 2008)
75
Expediting Saint John 's Planning and Development Process 62
Amy Poffenroth, Deputy Commissioner, Building & Inspection Services (October 24,
2008)
Holly Young, Engineering & Public Works (October 24, 2008)
Provincial Officials
Gary Mersereau, Manager, Sustainable Planning Branch (October 2, 2008)
Joanne Glynn, Manager, Community Planning Section (October 2, 2008)
Scott MacGregor, Chair, Assessment and Planning Appeal Board (October 28, 2008)
Others
Richard Danziger, Planning Director, Kawartha Lakes ON (September 26, 2008)
Gay Drescher, Development Officer, Rothesay (October 27, 2008)
Rudy Kohut, Senior Planner, State of Victoria, Australia (September 29, 2008)
Dr. Robert MacKinnon, Vice - President UNBSJ (October 22, 2008)
Fee
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process
Appendix B - Kingston's Planning Application Forms
INSTRUCTIONS FOR BASIC APPLICATION FORM
.............................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................
1425 Midland Avoli
uki City Hall, 21b On larto Silro(A
Kingston, OrTlarto K7L 2n
Phorto (613) 5415-42qi P'ax (61:d) 384-6645
I Prior [a fifing your appkaLor %mrh tha, �, lianning Di-wison, you sria��d consult wir.h a City Illzriner.
2'. F,a¢ Complete a 'Basic Applicabon" fann.
lby . Complete and attach one or more of the followmq forms to tie 'Ba&c Ad ,tcator' form, as required:
i) 'Zo6ng By-Law Ajrnendrnsr l Applirzatot i " form;
lif "Officiall Plan Amendmeril Application* form.,
by Remcwal! of Holding Provision (H) Applicator, " farms�
vw) "Part Lot Central Lift. AttiVocabcn' form;
V) 'i-teritage Permit 4ilpticabon' fcrrn
,0) 'Subdivismcn Application' form-
vii) "Eii Plan Application' fiorm,
viio) 'Minior Vahance Appkauon' form;
[,X) "Consent Appficiabon'fortm.
S. -Subimil completed application torms, altachmerls and lea to lhealcove e,c6ress.
4 Application forms conrmin4,rig insufficent or inaccurate information 1will be resumed.,, wilM the appucation fee, to, the
apinficanit. An is considered In, be recerveo by Planning i on the bale it lis reoe,,ved lank suffiroe ,l
information and the correct fee
5 An acooWedgernent of [he applicabon wil only be mailed to lhe zt/rjorcarit or rif smy) wMea trys applicsfion has
BKQWJIUNANT$�
fl. APPUCATIONS:
Qa� Indicate each type of appik,.,aliort yau haves attached to lhe 'Genersil Applicabon' form.
2, PnECONSUILTAnON
Cnev(, a bi to, incicate mrielher YOL110.7iiaee spoken lea Civy Planner vooiil your pr000sal. lf so, Ixr+,Zseproeiice the mare
ji, CUSTOMEF1 INIFORMAM&
la} rhe applicant section of the fcnn i be compleied for ag application types. If the applicant is a ,Turnbered
company, proyide the narry of a pfinc,paf of tae company.
jbf lf an agent iis I,Ved to jrepresent the -slomcant, written,, dateb and signed autnorizato7 frorn Uns, applicant for the
agent to represent hisVher interests n,,ust accompany me application for WL applicabon types.
Ic) Complete the information for the owner if different from the applicant. If the owner is a company oem4y the
p6icosa of the company.
Idi, it is the responsibilky of the - ii or applicartio notify Planning DMsion of any change in cmnersrrvp, api or
authofized &geni witmvin 30 days of sjzh a, mange,.
4, LOCATIlON AND DESCMIPIT11,0W
Complete as much, informakii as possible for the location of the land ariVor property to be ocnsidereb in the applIzator.
A loratiDni map mtgl,accompany the apptwralior and a sufoey plan, if available, sho,&(d be o7,cluded.
S. AMIDAVIT /SWORN DECLARATIOW
For 134ficial Plan Arnencirriv,,T1, Zoning By-l-Rikv Amendment., or Remueall of Holding Provision I H) applications., an affidavit
77
63
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 64
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ZONING BY-L,AW AMENDMENT
APPLICATION IFORM
. . . . ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e ............. . . . . .... . .... . . . .. . .
]'he Corp&,,allort ofilho Cily of Kingston
plarving L)Ivislorl
INYWakiprilarit Serviots
1425 1 a ilid Ave r1L10
aao Cily 214J Ontario Straw
Kingslort, Onlatio K71- 2Z3
P'Tione 1]1513) 54G-42q1 fax e, I I
----------
T, Prior lot filing your Riaplicator, With the Planning Divieon,yo'l �roukd oavTauft Wth a City Pkemrver.
2l. Subinil completed iapplication forms, attachrrerls and fee to the abooe add;reas.
Application farms containing insAficient: or inaccurate Information will be returned, wth the applica6on lee, to the
applicant- An application is considered to be received by Planning Dlyision an the date it is received ''Nth
suffirAent informat6n and the correct, fee.
4 An ac0oWledWient: ia2 the appleation will only be mailed to, the edpl',zant: or agent P,Il any) when [tie appliullion
ras been receiasc, revIewed, and accepted by stiaf, as complete. An incomplete apicircabort cannot be
processed.
6 ff the subiecl lands are wilhin art area of interest rrr adjacent to lands c7ovneib by the Cialaraqui Region
Consaroatton Aumorly, ii waterways. marshes, floodplain, environmental protection areas, eizzi: 'j. a Separate lee
shaIll be, sub6lted 1,c) the Conseri AUlhonty for Its revsE'W. See attached `RCA fee Schedule.
6- If the subiecl lands zs oi of d y serviced areas, the apphrator will be inirc&,zled to the Frontenas, Larerow
and AcidIngtcri Heath Uril. Fire applicant will tie responsible. for any fees subject to Glls revicilky.
Please refer b U.% requiremenls listed below wmien, uoinplefing, [his appitcacin
MWIMMANTS!
PART Mt CUISTOMEn INFORMATION
a) The applicant secrion of the forn-i nitusl be Dampleta:I. 11 VIE SpidiACShl is R rii.ImLered company,
provide the name of R principal' & the company.
(b) 11 an agent is listed to represent the applicsn'l, weilter, dated and siqned &Ahofiza6on frorn the
appliezint for the agent. to ,epresenl hislher interests ryust accompany ti application.
(c) CornpleLe the rformalion for rig, owner J different from Uns aicqbr,cant. If the ovoner is a
company, identify vie prineqpi of rne, company.
fd) 11 is the arewsponslrwr lyi & the per or applicant lo notfly Planning Dvis»�q of any change in
ownership, apphr-ant or authonzed agent within 0 bays of such a &anq.e.
PART Mllt PRECONISULTATION
Check a box to ndncate i yi have spoken, to a City Planner about y s orOPOSal. if S11,
please provide the rawrne.
PAnT 111,1 LOCATION AND DESMAPT10N
Complete as mruch Marmaktzxrr, as pcsswble for Ifre Iocatcw7 of the land and?cr lbi to be
rxnslJaret, r,,n, the application. A location map, Ii1mgg acvorripany the appkca;kir and a ssrvey plan, l
available, &?Tcy.&fd be iuni:Audecl.
PArniv &,v! GENERAL INFIMMATION AND NATURE Of PnOPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Reytsed 201014-02
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 65
Appendix C - Suggested Chair's Introduction
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin, I'd like to go over
PAC's procedures for those of you who have not been here before.
We will go through the agenda in the order specified, except that we will
skip those items for which there is no representation. This will help get you
out of here faster this evening.
Our normal procedure is that for each item, we will begin with the staff
report. Committee members will then ask questions of staff on their report
and recommendation. Following this, I will ask if the applicant is present
and wishes to present to the Committee. If so, I'll ask the applicant to come
and sit at the table (assuming a committee room or board room setting, state
their name and present their case within ten minutes. The Committee may
then question the applicant.
Following the applicant, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak to the
application. If so, I'll ask them to come to the table and introduce
themselves for the record. Each presenter will be limited to five minutes. If
there is a delegation in the room, it would be appropriate to have only one or
two spokespersons address the Committee. There will be a maximum of one
hour for all presentations on each application before us this evening as we
have a lengthy agenda and many items to deal with.
I also ask each presenter to not repeat what another person has said. In other
words, each presenter should provide new material to the Committee. It
does not help us in our decision - making to hear about the same parting or
traffic issue several times. Further, this Committee is dealing with land use,
not other issues. Hence, please don't introduce other matters that are not
relevant to the land's use.
Following the presentations on each item, the Committee may ask the
applicant to return to the table to respond to questions that may have arisen
from the public input.
The Committee will then discuss the application in public. A motion will be
put to the Committee and voted on. Following the vote, the Committee will
proceed to the next item on the agenda for which there is representation.
I hope that this procedure is clear to you and now we can proceed.
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 66
Endnotes
iWilliam E. Cooper and Tommy J. Jellinek, "The Evolution of Community Planning in
New Brunswick: 1912 - 1980 ", UNB Law Journal, 29, 173, 1980
ii Statutes of New Brunswick (S.N.B.), 1912, c.19
Ambler Realty Co. v. City of Euclid (1924), 297 Fed. 307 at 311 -12 (Ohio D.C.)
iv Thomas Adams, "Planning and Development in New Brunswick ", The Busy East of
Canada, Sackville NB, October 1917.
S.N.B. 1936, c.35
Vi Cooper and Jellinek, op. cit.
Vii 21 N.B.R. (2nd) 587 (N.B.Q.B.), 1978
viii Minister of Municipal Affairs, A White Paper on The Planning Act, Toronto, 1979
ix City of Ottawa, "Planning Primer: Session 1 ", January 2009, pg. 13
X William E. Cooper, The Community Planning Act Review, Department of Municipal
Affairs, Fredericton, 1979
Xi Michael C. Ircha, "Rationalizing Local Government: The Effects of the Progressive
Era ", Municipal World, 94:10, October 1984, pp. 259 -60
Xii Stanley M. Makuch, Canadian Municipal and Planning Law, The Carswell Company,
Toronto, 1983, p. 268
Xiii Sara Blake, Administrative Law in Canada, Butterworths, Toronto, 1992, p. 1
Xlv Sara Blake, ibid., p. 9
Xv Gary Mersereau, Manager of Sustainable Planning, Province of New Brunswick,
private communication, October 2, 2008
Xvi Natural justice issues were raised in the following APAP decisions by S.
MacGregor, Chair: "The Mahmud Group Inc. v. Tantramar Planning District
Commission" Moncton, March 6, 2008; Dr. Peter Vojdani v. Rural Planning District
Commission" Fredericton, February 25, 2008; "Edward Clark v. Royal District
Planning Commission" Saint John, January 30, 2008; "Harrison Lewis v. Greater
Moncton Planning District Commission" Moncton, June 2, 2006; "Thomas McBride v.
Royal District Planning Commission" Saint John, March 4, 2005; "Dean Construction
Limited v. Town of Grand Bay - Westfield Planning Advisory Committee" Saint John,
December 12, 2005; and, "Florence MacFarlane and Gregory Murphy v.
Development Officer /Building Inspector, Beaubassin Planning Commission"
Moncton, February 4, 2004.
Xvii "Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness ", sourced November 12, 2008 from
www.vu.edu.au /library/pdf/ natural %20justice %2015 %20OCT %202001.pdf
Xviii Ken Binmore, Natural Justice, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005, pp. 3 -5
XiX City of Calgary, A Community Guide to the Planning Process, accessed October
2008, www.cal ar .calDocGallery BU/planningpdf e uide.pdf
XX Ibid.
XXi J.G. Finn, Building Stronger Local Governments and Regions, Report of the
Commissioner of the Future of Local Governance, Fredericton NB, November 2008,
p. 126.
.:1
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 67
xxii Cooper and Jellinek, op. cit.
xxiii J.G. Finn, op. cit., Recommendation 10, p. 92.
xxiv New Brunswick, "Public Engagement ", Section 5, Local Government Resource
Manual, Department f Local Government, Fredericton NB. Accessible on -line at:
http://www.gnb.ca/0370/0370/0003/0000-E.asp
xxv M.C. Ircha, "Working with council: a staff perspective ", Municipal World, 93:10,
October 1983, p. 261.
xxvi J.G. Finn, op. cit.
xxvii M.C. Ircha, "Partners in Communication: Council and Staff', Municipal World,
Part I, 99:11, November 1989, and Part II, 99:12, 1989.
xxviii M.C. Ircha, "The Art of Communication ", Portus, 6:3, Spring 1991, pp. 32 -40.
xxix J. C. Finn, op. cit., p. 126.
xxx D. Morse, "Zoning ", Planning Primer Session 1, Ottawa, January 2009.
xxxi Province of New Brunswick, "The Processing of Variances to the Requirements of
a Zoning or Subdivision Regulation ", Sustainable Planning Branch, Department of
Environment, Fredericton, February 7, 2007. Accessible on -line at:
http://www.gnb.ca/0009/0136/0002/0001-e.asp
xxxii S. MacGregor, Chair, Assessment and Planning Appeal Board, "Dr. Peter Vojdani
v. Rural Planning District Commission and Victor Hendricken ", Fredericton,
February 25, 2008.
xxxiii Ibid
xxxiv S. MacGregor, Chair, Assessment and Planning Appeal Board, "Gregory Gillis v.
Fredericton Planning Advisory Committee and Delta Fredericton ", Fredericton,
February 28, 2005.
xxxv F. Houle and L. Sossin, "Tribunals and Policy- Making: From Legitimacy to
Fairness ", in L.A. Jacobs and Justice A.L Mactavish, Dialogue between Courts and
Tribunals: Essays in Administrative Law and Justice, 2001 -2007, Canadian Institute
for the Administration of Justice, Montreal, 2008, p. 137.
xxxvi Robert's Rules of Order Revised, 41h edition on -line,
http: / /www.rulesonline.com /index.html
xxxvii S. MacGregor, Chair, Assessment and Planning Appeal Board, "The Mahmud
Group Inc. v. Tantramar Planning District Commission ", Fredericton, March 2008.
xxxviii Province of New Brunswick, "A Guideline on the Conduct of District Planning
Commission Meetings ", Sustainable Planning Branch, Department of Environment,
Fredericton, February 7, 2007.
xxxix Gary Mersereau, op. cit.
xl S. MacGregor, Chair, Assessment and Planning Appeal Board, "Edward Clark v.
Royal District Planning Commission ", Fredericton, January 30, 2008.
xli S. MacGregor, Chair Assessment and Planning Appeal Board, "Thomas McBride v.
Royal District Planning Commission ", Fredericton, March 4, 2005.
xhi S. MacGregor, Chair, Assessment and Planning Appeal Board, "Harrison Lewis v.
Greater Moncton Planning District Commission, Fredericton, June 2, 2006.
xlui Ibid.
Expediting Saint Johns Planning and Development Process 68
Xliv S. MacGregor, Chair, Assessment and Planning Appeal Board, "The Mahmud
Group Inc. v. Tantramar Planning District Commission, Fredericton, March 6, 2008.
Xlv S. MacGregor, Chair, Assessment and Planning Appeal Board, "Thomas McBride v.
Royal District Planning Commission ", Fredericton, March 4, 2005.
Xlvi R. Ammouri, "Land Gazette 2000: A Prototype Virtual Workplace for Enhanced
Community Involvement in Public Decision - Making ", PhD dissertation, Geodesy and
Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick, 2002.
xlvii City of Ottawa, Planning Primer, Session 1, January 2009.
82
PY4
J
•
00
O
V
U
L
L1.
00
4.:
1;
L-
N
U
O
U
C/)
N
a
O
N
U)
CD
E
O
.cn
�U
N
a
N
N
Q
X
N
Q
�U
N
a)
O
cn
CD
.C:
N
L-
0
W
i
0
cn
O
N
Q
N
U
.L
cn
O
U
•
•
CD
.C:
Q
.0
O
00-1 4LI
U
Q
.N U
N
.C:
cn
N
N
U
O
Q
co
134
4-
0
cr
_C/)
0
LO
00
I
a)
C
a-
0
E
CL
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
0
cn
E
cu
—
0
L
cu
a)
0
0
C
cn
0
_
♦--+
4-0
C:
a)
cu
L-
�--+
0
�
_a)
>,
a)
C:
4-0
m
CD
C: U
E
�
N
E
L
4
.cn
N
E
O
E
Q
c
U
E
-Se
U
0
U
�
r
Q
Cn
�
I
1 ..
1;
1
•
•
N
I
O
c}a
CL
a)
0
a)
IZ-
0
a)
m
L-
a)
IZ-
♦. -+
O
O
♦-0
U
�U
Cli
L-
O
Q
O
CL
0
a�
V—
N
a)
m
vi
0
E
Q
0
a)
E
Q
N
0
N
2
O
O
U
O
ca
cn
.cn
ca
ca
N
N
a)
Im
O
CL
N
U
Q
ca
a)
cn
Q
a)
cn
N
E
Q
N
O
a)
O
a)
E
a)
In
U
CL
Q
m
O
cn
0
E
0
CL
E
a)
cm
cn
c
O
ca
a)
E
E
0
a)
cn
c�a
CL
ca
O
c�a
N
Im
0
E
a)
'—
O
cn
U
Q
Im
r-
co
ll
O
O
CL
N
cn
E
C
L
c
O
a)
UL
}'
4-0
�
O
N
U
a
O
i
a)
X
C:
C)
N
O
O
L
O
m
-0
O
®
L
cn
c
L
O
L
L
Q
C
�
�-0
N
O
.O
-
0.cn
.O
cn
N
cn
O
. —
O
_
•
E
U
O
+r
cu
U
U
OUP
0�
�`�
o
4
U
O
o
a)
�
E
o
o
'
O
U
'�
N
L
E
O
�cu
Z
tea)
0.
vJ
ll
I
I
L
U
U
O
rn
N
rn
1
1;
•
!7
L
1�
1
O
♦-0
a)
a .
L
O
^L
I..L
O
_a)
IZ-
I..L
N
E
cn
U
Q
1
1
1
r�
a)
.E
O
cn
N
CL
E
cn
O
_a)
a)
L
L
L
0
cn
cn
N
CL
Q
cn
N
cn
L
O
r
E
.X
m
E
O
. L
Q
E
O
O
.cn
cn
cn
CL
N
O
Q
N
U
cn
a)
cn
cn
a)
.L
1
cn
O
N
cn
cn
O
O
cn
a)
E
IZ-
Q
O
L-
cm
cn
L-
cn
N
cn
O
U
Q
E
X
Q
O
Q
L
a)
0
O
Q
E
O
U
cn
.cn
rn
ui
0
0
0
L-
a)
Q
IZ-
0
0
.CL
0
LO
rn
Q
O
U
U
^Q
I..L
W
O
Q
O
.M
W
Q
El
1
•
# 1
1
1
1
!+
1
1 0
CD 0
1
► W
1
0 0
0-0 o
a)
�.
1
0
cz
1:
O
W
E
E
O
a)
Q
a-0
O
O
O
U
O
U
Q
0
U
c}a
Mi
Q
QL
a-0 U)
a-0
a)
a--+
C)
E
a)
cu
U
Q
a_
^�
W
L
U
'
•
O
U
a)
L
_�
O
LJJ
a)
ca
Q
O
U
U
^Q
I..L
W
O
Q
O
.M
W
Q
El
1
•
# 1
1
1
1
!+
1
1 0
CD 0
1
► W
1
0 0
0-0 o
a)
�.
1
0
cz
1:
O
W
E
E
O
a)
Q
a-0
O
O
O
U
O
U
Q
0
U
c}a
Mi
ti
rn
'E
L
!�
a
4-0
'E
4-0
�.:�
(a
a)
N
N
L
p
O
cp
N
N
E
N
c
p
4-0
'U
cn
n
.�
p
C6
cn
N
N
U
N
cn
O
N
•p
•N
E
cn
cu
J
cn
>1
N
>
E
.V
p
U
0 0
•CU
cn
U
E
�
cn
CU
N
L
cn
L
_
p
L
a)
E
E
a-0
N
=
_
p
_
'
o
}'
°
O
p
CU
U
p
L
ca
E
a)
cn
a
m
CU
CL
Q
L
Lij
E
C:
N
p
p
N
cn
—
a)
�
U
p
ti
rn
I
1;
1;
•
�r
1
•
All
•U
_m
Q
O
N
U
U
N
i
C
O O
N cu
N E
n L
U_ _O
O
N
E
E
O
U
N
L
a)
CD
Q
O
cn
cn
N
E
Q
N
N �_
� �
•
O N
-0 U
cu N
CY) cn
•� N
C
C
N
cn
Q
U-
O
a)
E
U
O
a
CD
.C:
Q
CD
E
_N
O
O
a
ui
cn
a)
U
O
Q
O
Q
�U
Q
U
Q
N
U
.C:
m
C)
0
March 3, 2009
Your Worship and Councillors:
The Urban Design Committee was created by a resolution of Common Council in October 2006
to make recommendations to Council on what design and building standards should be
implemented in Saint John, The Committee has met regularly since its appointment in February
2007, and has done an extensive review of urban design guidelines and review processes in an
increasing number of North American municipalities, explored the current context of
development and policies regarding urban design in Saint John and considered the potential
benefits and options for introducing a system of urban design standards in Saint John.
A very brief synopsis of the Committee's work is contained in this letter, as are the Committee's
recommendations to Council for moving forward with an Urban Design process. A more
complete discussion of the Committee's work is contained in the attached Urban Design
Background Report,
Urban Design
Urban Design is the art of making places for people, It is concerned with how places function as
well as how they look, and it recognizes the far-reaching (and often unintended) impacts that the
built form of our cities has on people. Urban design is a new way of looking at and building
cities that analyses the connections between people and places, movement and urban form,
nature and the built envirorunent. It can be applied to both public and private spaces, including
streets, sidewalks, open spaces, buildings and structures, and their connections to each other.
Urban design brings together many strands of place-making, such as land use, environmental
concerns, social equity and economic viability, to create places and communities that work for
the people who use them and are sustainable for the long term. To do this, -urban design
incorporates the disciplines and learnings of land use and transportation planning, architectural
design, development economics, sociology, landscaping and engineering to create a collective
vision for an area and then ensure that it is delivered through all aspects of development.
Good urban design benefits the vitality and sustainability of communities, enhances
neighbourhood interactions and brings lasting environmental, social and economic benefits,
Urban Design in Saint John
Saint John has a unique competitive advantage over many communities in their quest to attract
and retain people, people increasingly compelled by "quality of life" factors in their conscious
choice of where to work, live, play and learn. Our city was built around a dense urban core that
retains a vibrant mix of businesses, cultural and residential uses in a time when other cities are
striving to revitalize abandoned downtown areas. Our city also offers a variety of distinctive
ffill
Urban Design in Saint John Page 2
March 5, 2009
character areas and an array of residential lifestyle choices in close proximity to services,
industry, education, and other important institutions. These character areas and the identity of
Saint John as a whole can be enhanced and enriched with all increased emphasis on good urban
design.
This Committee's review of Urban Design principles, standards and guidelines being applied in a
variety of other municipalities across North America has convinced us that the adoption of
planning and development policies and by-laws that require a high quality of urban design will
have long-lasting positive economic, social and environmental benefits. Research and anecdotal
analysis shows that the application of Urban Design principles can help Saint John:
- attract and retain a diversified, adaptable and highly skilled workforce;
- improve quality of life for residents
- increase its attractiveness as a place to live, work and learn;
- continue to grow as a diverse community with distinct character areas and lifestyle choices
- provide increasing cultural, artistic and recreational opportunities;
- improve its environmental and social sustainability and economic resilience
- solidify and build on its unique appeal as a tourist destination.
Urban Design standards or guidelines need to be tailored to each community according to a
community-based vision and articulated through an updated Municipal Plan. While Zoning By-
laws address some quantitative standards (such as building height, size, site coverage, and
setbacks) and use restrictions that implement pieces of a community vision set out in the
Municipal Plan, urban design standards are needed to address more detailed and qualitative
aspects of development (such as architectural design, streetscapes, sustainability, and
connectivity) to fully realize a community's vision for its form and function.
Saint John's unique identity is the collective result of a wide variety of character areas
throughout the city — neighbourhoods such as the Uptown, Lower West Side, Portland Place,
Quinton Heights, and Forest Hills that are recognizably distinct and desirable for their individual
qualities and sense of place. These character areas must be respected and enhanced by design
standards that are sensitive and responsive to each community's needs, character and vision.
It is important that Urban Design standards follow a community vision and policies laid out in
the Municipal Plan; however, they also need to be translated into by-laws to provide
predictability of process and enforceability. As well, the urban design process must be flexible
enough to encourage and support creativity and innovation in development while still requiring
consistent quality and compatibility with the character and needs of each individual area of the
,community, as defined through increased community participation in the design process. A
review process based on clear standards and guidelines should be utilized to provide the required
consistency, predictability and flexibility while maintaining the City's reputation for relatively
quick planning approvals,
102
Urban Design in Saint John
March 5, 2009
Recommendations
Page 3
That a comprehensive Urban Design process be created as part of the development of a Growth
Strategy and new Municipal Plan for the City of Saint John.
That this Urban Design process respect best practices and be tailored to Saint John.
That, in the interim, amendments to the Municipal Plan be drafted to implement urban design
review for those developments requiring Planning Advisory Committee or Common Council
approval that are located in the Central Peninsula, including the Uptown, residential areas of the
Peninsula and the Waterfront, and in those areas with "RM -IF Multiple Residential Infill
zoning. Development in Heritage Preservation Areas would; however, be excluded from this
review.
That the Municipal Plan amendments, and any necessary Zoning By -law amendments, rely on an
Urban Design Review Committee as a sub - committee of the Planning Advisory Committee to
provide the design guidance for these developments.
That the Urban Design Review Committee review development proposals against acknowledged
Urban Design principles and accepted terms of reference, and then provide recommendations to
the Planning Advisory Committee and Common Council on design issues. The Review
Committee should consist of representatives of Common Council and the Planning Advisory
Committee, representatives of architecture, planning and design professions, appointed by peer
nomination, and members of the community at large. In order to ensure continuity and build
upon this Committee's knowledge, it is further recommended that that the eligible members of
the current Urban Design Committee make up part of the Review Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
Urban Design Committee.
for "+Ii�abeth DeLuisa)
103
Urban Design in Saint John - Background Report
Background:
In October of 2006 Common Council resolved to establish a Committee to make
recommendations to Council on what design and buildings standards should be
implemented in Saint John (hereafter referred to as "the City") and where they should
apply. Robert Boyce, Malcolm Boyd, Elizabeth DeLuisa, and Morgan Lanigan were
appointed for three year terms as the Urban Design Committee (hereafter referred to as
"the Committee"). Regrettably, Malcolm Boyd resigned from the Committee in
December of 2007.
The Committee has undertaken analysis of the current development and design
environment in Saint John, examined urban design guidelines and review processes
currently in place in a number of North American cities, and discussed the potential
benefits of urban design guidance for the City. A review of the Committee's work is
contained in this report, as are the Committee's recommendations for moving forward
with an Urban Design process for our City.
Analysis:
What is Urban Design?
Urban Design has been described in a number of ways, including the "art and science of
making wonderful places". Although the practice of urban design varies widely from
place to place, it is essentially a new way of examining and building cities that
incorporates the disciplines of planning, architecture, and sociology, among others.
Urban design recognizes the far-reaching, and often unintended, impacts that the built
form of our cities can have upon the people who live in them, the use of the places and
systems within the city, and the broader environment. This holistic view of the city
focuses primarily on the people that make up the city, and recognizes that the individual
buildings, streets, and places must function as a cohesive whole to meet the varied needs
of the community.
Urban design is, first and foremost, about the people who live, work, play and learn
within the City, and the design process works to ensure that individual projects contribute
positively to the evolution of the whole city as a livable, accessible, attractive, vibrant
and safe place. Urban design is becoming recognized as an integral part of city planning
and development across North America as citizens and all levels of government wake to
the realization that cities are our economic drivers and home to eight out of ten people
across the country. Following over three decades of urban neglect and decline, focus is
shifting to urban revitalization and "re-urbanization".
104
Saint John is fortunate to be built around an urban core that many cities are only now
trying to duplicate, one based on the traditional form of European cities not built
primarily for the automobile but instead for people and pedestrians. This core provides
us with an example of how the rest of the city can be densified in a uniquely livable and
sustainable manner by returning to traditional neighbourhoods — mixed-use, walkable
mini-communities within the larger city. A key component in increasing the density and
use of urban areas is improving their form, function and aesthetics. Communities and
governments across North America are beginning to utilize Urban Design guidelines and
review processes in a variety of ways to increase the livability of urban areas in a holistic
manner.
Although the definitions and descriptions of Urban Design abound, the process is
generally intended to improve the human experience of the city by considering and
shaping its interrelated physical and visual components: buildings, streets, open spaces,
lights, sidewalks, and landscaping to create a unique, functional, attractive, safe and
vibrant place for people to live, work, play and learn.
Most Urban Design guidelines and processes are based upon a set of similar principles or
goals. The Committee has assessed these Urban Design fundamentals and recommends
the following principles for Urban Design in Saint John, focusing on:
a) Respecting sense of place when integrating new ideas and new forms to build
upon the good qualities of the City to produce distinctive, contemporary
development and redevelopment that are well-suited to their time and place;
b) Utilizing a thoughtful and creative process of design resulting in quality and
excellence in the built form;
c) Creating inviting, accessible places and streetscapes to enhance people's safety,
comfort and enjoyment;
d) Promoting a vibrant, diverse mix of activities in a compact, accessible setting;
c) Improving the human experience of the City by offering appropriate
opportunities for year-round interaction and enjoyment;
f) Enhancing a livable city that enriches relationships between people, the built
environment and the natural environment;
g) Taking a comprehensive and consultative approach to balance development with
economic, social and environmental sustainability; and
h) Creating a consistent process for the analysis of design that clearly communicates
the communities' and the City's agreed-upon expectations for appropriate and
quality design.
2
105
Essentially, good Urban Design will benefit the vitality and sustainability of our
community, enhance neighborhood interactions and bring lasting environmental, social
and economic benefits.
Opportunities in Saint John
Saint John is moving into a time of economic growth and development, with a number of
large industrial projects being planned for the immediate and longer term. These projects
bring with them considerable job creation and economic spin-offs, and associated growth
is also expected to occur in residential and commercial sectors.
The people of Saint John and New Brunswick have benefited from past experience and
recognize that these kinds of large-scale projects must have long-lasting benefits for the
community. Several other current projects, including the provincial Benefits Blueprint
initiative and Uptown Saint John's Wealth Creation Strategy, recognize this need for
long-term benefits, and are working toward shared goals for the community and the
Province. With proper planning and the coordination of these and other initiatives, the
identity of the City could be enriched for generations to come.
Current investment and opportunities offer a prime opportunity for the City of Saint John
to "raise the bar" for future projects in all sectors and set clear expectations for
developers and the community. Community consultation for Vision 2015 laid out the
first steps toward long-term thinking and planning for the City. A well-thought out and
properly implemented Urban Design process would build upon the great blueprint of the
City as it exists today and shift the future back to people, and the buildings, amenities,
strectscapes and waterfronts that meet their needs and wants. Also, a new process of
analysis and development review provides opportunities for improved communication
and process clarity between developers, City departments and the community as a whole.
Support for Urban Design Principles
The City's policies regarding development and urban planning are found in the Municipal
Plan and other documents and policy statements adopted by Common Council, including
the Inner Harbour Land Use Plan, the Arts and Culture Policy, and most recently the
Sustainability Principles, Community Vision and 20 Year Goals of Vision 2015. Analysis
of these documents indicates a strong and long-lasting support for the principles and
experience of Urban Design, even if they are not particularly ascribed to that discipline.
The City's existing policies, drafted and adopted by Common Council from 1973 to the
present, and especially the Community Vision and 20 Year Community Goals of Vision
2015, clearly illustrate the communities' and Common Council's interest in general urban
design principles. The desire is clearly expressed for Saint John to a leading city with a
high quality of life that attracts growth and diversity in a sustainable manner. A strong
sense of community, inclusive housing and beautiful, diverse neighbourhoods with high
3
ITIT61
standards of architecture, landscaping, connectivity, infrastructure management and
urban design are all discussed as goals for Saint John. As well, the need for development
to contribute positively to the community as a whole is clearly declared.
These policies in and of themselves do not; however, create the necessary changes in our
community. This is evidenced by the long-standing support for Urban Design yet its lack
of translation into predictable, enforceable processes to create the desired results. It is
recognized the translation of policy into action often requires an evolution of process, as
was the case with the current Heritage Preservation process; however, that evolution must
begin now to ensure that we appropriately design our community in a thoughtful and
thorough way. The City's regulations need to clearly translate long-standing policies into
effective and enforceable standards, review and actions to properly guide Saint John
through the current time of opportunity and ensure long-lasting benefits.
Community interest in and support for Urban Design can also be seen in the intense
community engagement in recent projects such as Leinster Court and Peel Plaza. The
relationship of these developments to the wider area and the potential impacts of design
on far-reaching aspects of community life have been widely and strongly debated, and a
public consultation process on design passionately advocated for by both the general
public and City Councilors.
Benefits of Urban Design
The proliferation of cities and urban regions currently implementing and using Urban
Design Guidelines speaks to the recognized importance of good civic design and
guidance. Although most feedback on the positive results of Urban Design in North
America is anecdotal at this point, comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis
has been undertaken in both the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
A comprehensive study prepared for the Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment (CABE) in the United Kingdom in May of 2007, entitled "Economic Value
of Urban Design", and a report entitled "The Value of Urban Design" prepared for the
New Zealand Ministry of the Environment with the Wellington City Council and the
Auckland Regional Council in 2005 reported numerous quantifiable benefits stemming
from the application of the core elements of urban design. Both reports noted similar
positive impacts (among many others) in the following key sectors:
a) Economic benefits — increased capital value, market attractiveness, reduced
whole-life costs, attraction and retention of business and a diversified, adaptable
and skilled workforce, increased property and investment security, economic
resilience, savings on infrastructure costs, and adaptability and increased
opportunities for re-use of buildings and spaces.
b) Social benefits — increased civic pride and community engagement, increased
social inclusion and interaction, reduced crime, user ownership of spaces,
in
107
increased safety and security, cultural, artistic and recreational opportunities,
increased user convenience and lifestyle choices, increased diversity of amenities
and health benefits from increased walking and active transportation choices.
c) Environmental benefits — increased energy efficiency, reduced waste and
pollution, decreased reliance on personal automobiles, higher densities and more
opportunities for conservation of green space, and resource conservation from
adaptive re-use of buildings and reduced infrastructure demands.
This comprehensive research, as well as the implementation of Urban Design processes
in numerous municipalities in North American, Europe and New Zealand, and
undoubtedly other places, clearly indicates the value of good Urban Design guidance to
the City and its citizens. As indicated in the research, benefits extend beyond the
aesthetic and social realm, to the environmental and economic realms for both the private
and public sector.
Examples of Urban Design
While certain aspects of design are currently regulated through the City's Zoning By-law,
examples of Urban Design from other communities illustrate that civic and community
guidance can, and should be, extended to address many other important aspects of design
and development.
A review of several mid-size Canadian municipalities with populations similar to Saint
John revealed that many have implemented site or area-specific guidelines similar to
those found in the Saint John Inner Harbour Land Use Plan and proposed for the Peel
Plaza project. Other municipalities have implemented guidelines that are broader in
scope but fall short of providing a process for municipal review and enforcement, and
simply provide recommendations or suggestions for improved design. The fact that many
mid-size municipalities have not implemented Urban Design guidelines for their cities as
a whole likely does not indicate that they do not believe the process is valid, but that they
are moving towards it in a phased manner.
In particular, Portland, Maine, Halifax, Nova Scotia and Fredericton, New Brunswick -
the cities closest to Saint John and perhaps most similar to our development context, have
all implemented, or are in the process of implementing, some form of Urban Design
guidance in recent years.
Portland,. Maine
Portland's Urban Design Guidelines are a component of the City of Portland's
Downtown Plan and of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Guidelines are supporting
reference documents for the City's Downtown Business District Zoning Ordinance and
Site Plan Standards, and a companion to the Technical and Design Standards and
Guidelines for the City of Portland.
iTim.
The Downtown Guidelines have been in place since 1991, guidelines for Infill
Development have been in place since 2004, guidelines for Bayview (a formerly
industrial area which is now being re-developed with office and residential uses) was
adopted in the spring of 2008 and Waterfront Guidelines have been drafted but are not
yet adopted.
Projects are reviewed for conformity with the applicable design guidelines when they
require zoning amendments or review under the site plan ordinance. The site plan
ordinance requires the review of all site-related features for projects with certain
thresholds based on type of use, size of buildings, etc. This Urban Design process has
been particularly successful in increasing the quality of projects throughout the city, but
especially for smaller projects which would not have previously required any review or
guidance. These projects do; however, have make up a large part of the city and
therefore comprise an immense impact on its character.
Portland previously employed an Urban Designer who dealt exclusively with issues
related to the various Urban Design Guidelines; however, following recent budget cuts
these responsibilities are now shared between five staff of the Planning Department.
Despite the recent loss of the Urban Designer, work is currently underway to amend the
existing Infill Guidelines and to develop guidelines for residential areas.
The implementation of guidelines throughout Portland has been undertaken in phased
manner, starting first with the Downtown guidelines. A series of public consultations
were held to develop the guidelines, and the City will be starting an educational
campaign in a short time,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Halifax recently adopted the Downtown Halifax Vision as the next step in the
HRMbyDesign process. The HRMbyDesign process began in July 2006 as a directive of
the Halifax Regional Municipality's Regional Plan to articulate a design strategy to foster
quality development and vibrant public spaces through the creation of new policies and
tools for the entire Halifax Regional Municipality. These tools include design guidelines,
improved development approval processes, and incentives for high quality development
with the downtown and surrounding Regional Centre. The HRMbyDesign process is
intended to provide Council with a clarified policy framework within which solid and
expedient development decisions can be made.
Since February of 2007, the process has focused on downtown Halifax, in recognition of
the development pressures felt there, and the lack of clear guidance in existing municipal
plan policies, The recently completed Downtown Vision is based on three components -
Guiding Principles, Big Moves and a District Based Approach. The six overarching
principles which at all times guide the content and direction for the Vision over the next
25 years are: A Sustainable Downtown, A Living Downtown, a Distinct Downtown, a
Beautiful Downtown, a Connected Downtown and a Vibrant Downtown. The ten
aspirations, or Big Moves, for the Downtown constitute a shared and widely agreed upon
vision of what the community wants its downtown to look like and how they want it to
M
ITI•
function. The Big Moves include, but are not limited to defining distinct downtown
districts, protecting a vibrant historic heart, great streetscapes, remediating the interface
and quality of existing buildings and structures, designing new developments to be
sustainable, well-mannered and pedestrian-friendly.
Finally, the District Based Approach of the Vision focuses on developing distinct districts
in the City that will be governed by policy that addresses:
a) District character and identity;
b) Absolute building height, building massing and upper storey setbacks;
c) Heritage protection considerations;
d) Detailed urban design guidelines;
e) Open space recommendations;
f) Recommended land uses; and
g) Other guidelines and recommendations as deemed appropriate.
This district approach is intended to provide clarity and predictability for policy in the
downtown study area while retaining the context-specific detail required to direct
appropriate treatment of heritage resources and the appropriate form and height of new
development while bringing vibrancy and excellence of design to the pedestrian realm.
Fredericton, New Brunswick
Fredericton's Capital City Municipal Plan prescribes a design review process to ensure
that the exterior design of new buildings, alterations to existing buildings and open space
developments are compatible with the Residential Town Plat Planning Area. The Town
Plat Planning Area further defines the objectives of Heritage and Design Review to
establish design principles and guidelines that ensure a pattern of built form respectful of
the area's historical and architectural integrity and to establish a process for design
review that promotes a high standard of performance. Design principles and guidelines
have been developed to respond to the unique character and identity of areas of the Town
Plan, and also:
a) encourage the retention and rehabilitation of older building stock;
b) respect the scale, form and materials present in prevailing traditional building
patterns;
c) encourage innovation and variety in residential types with the parameters of
accepted density;
7
ime
d) encourage new development that is respectful of the prevailing setbacks within
each area;
e) recognize the historical value and integrity of the street grid;
f) encourage the retention of existing views and vistas, and the creation of new
opportunities for view corridors and spaces;
g) promote landscape design that gives prominence to green spaces, maintains dust-
free surfaces, and discourages light and noise pollution;
h) encourage the design of parking areas and driveways to minimize their impact on
the strectscape through placement in rear yards, screening, and/or buffering;
i) retain and enhance the presence of street trees, which provide identity to
communities and offer shade and shelter for pedestrians; and
j) facilitate pedestrian access by means of walkways and pathways.
The Fredericton Planning Advisory Committee has appointed a Design Review Sub-
committee, and at the discretion of the Planning Advisory Committee, design principles,
guidelines and review processes may be applied to developments in the Town Plat area
that require amendments or variances to the Zoning By-law or Municipal Plan. The Sub-
committee is made up of a City Councilor, a member of the PAC, two registered
architects, one registered landscape architect, one professional engineer, one member-at-
large who resides in the City, and one staff member who serves as co-coordinator in a
non-voting capacity. This Sub-committee is mandated to implement the design review
process by giving due consideration to:
a) Overall design indicated in preliminary site plans, building plans and elevations,
streetscape furnishings and landscape plans, by means of review qualified
professionals;
b) The character of the proposed development in relation to its surroundings,
including site and neighborhood context; and
c) The quality of the proposed development with regard to materials, finishes and
colour.
CancIn6nn
Most of the larger municipalities and urban regions in Canada and the United States have
established Urban Design guidelines in one form or another. These guidelines address
issues ranging from infill housing to the entire realm of civic life, including public and
private spaces, art and culture, safety, and sustainability. As well, many municipalities
8
Im
have adopted general guidelines for the City as a whole as well as neighbourhood - or
issue - specific guidelines providing a higher level of detail and design consideration. The
methods of review and implementation vary from one City to another, as do the specific
content of each set of guidelines or standards, as each process has been crafted to suit
their particular urban form and community priorities.
The review and analysis of Urban Design guidelines and processes in other communities
has provided the Urban Design Committee with an understanding of the potential scope
and mechanisms for implementation and enforcement, and also reinforced the importance
of Urban Design as a key municipal planning process for the development of livable,
competitive cities. Based on the Committee's research and discussion, briefly
summarized in this report, the Urban Design Committee, appointed by Common Council
in October of 2006, is of the opinion that a well- crafted, thoughtful and appropriate urban
design process would greatly benefit the City of Saint John during this current time of
opportunity and into the future.
In order to fulfill the mandate given to the Urban Design Committee by Common Council
in October of 2006, the Committee will require appropriate time, support and resources to
undertake additional work. In particular, public consultation will be required to ensure
that design and building standards fulfill the community's expectations and vision for the
future of Saint John. The creation and intent of Urban Design guidance must be
integrated with the development of a Growth Strategy and new Municipal Plan and this
guidance must also be coordinated with other City initiatives, including the projects and
policies of all other Departments.
The fulfillment of the Committee's mandate and the implementation of Urban. Design
guidelines and a comprehensive review process also faces other challenges. Firstly, the
Community Planning Act, does not current provide legislative authority for the City to
regulate urban design issues. The City of Fredericton's decision to provide design review
as a sub - committee of their Planning Advisory Committee is a result of this legislative
reality. Although the existing policies of the City of Saint John, both new and older,
support the principles of Urban Design, these policies have not been translated into by-
laws or consistent, predictable processes. This translation, as well as the creation of
policy statements that are in keeping with the current community vision is necessary to
rectify the apparent conflict between the quantitative standards laid out for developers in
the City's by -laws and the increasingly qualitative concerns of the community.
Recommendations
That Common Council create a comprehensive Urban Design process as part of the
development of the Growth Strategy and the new Municipal Plan.
That the development of a comprehensive Urban Design process, including guidelines
and a review process, respect best practices, follow the previously discussed principles,
and include the following:
E
112
- consideration and guidance for the full spectrum of design and development in the
City — public and private projects, new development, re-development and
renovations, open spaces, streetscapes, parking, connectivity, and amenities.
- coordination with all policy documents and City initiatives.
- coordination with project-based design, such as for the proposed Peel Plaza
development.
- legal advice regarding the current legislative basis for design guidance in the
Province of New Brunswick and recommendations for the implementation and
enforcement of urban design.
- full public consultation regarding the development of urban design guidance with
the community at large, stakeholders and the development community and other
City departments.
- regard for the unique character areas and development pressures throughout the
City and consideration of a phased approach to implementation.
consistent and clear discussion of issues and expectations to ensure a predicable
application of standards for quality development and the opportunity for public
involvement in the design process.
- flexibility to encourage and support creativity and innovation in development
while requiring consistent quality and compatibility with the character and needs
of the community.
The Committee recognizes that the recommended development of comprehensive
guidelines and a full review process will require a significant investment of time to
ensure that the process is in keeping with the City's new Municipal Plan and policies, and
is in agreement with the community's objectives for the future of our city. However, the
Committee also recognizes significant development is currently occurring in the City, and
will continue to occur during the time required to develop a full Urban Design process.
As a result, the Committee also recommends that, in the interim, amendments to the
Municipal Plan be drafted to implement Urban Design review for those developments
requiring Planning Advisory Committee or Common Council approval that are located in
the Central Peninsula, including the Uptown, residential areas of the Peninsula and the
Waterfront, and in those areas with "RM-IF" Multiple Residential Infill zoning.
Development in the Heritage Preservation Areas would; however, be excluded from this
review.
10
113
That the Municipal Plan amendments, and any necessary Zoning By-law amendments,
rely on an Urban Design Review Committee as a sub-committee of the Planning
Advisory Committee to provide design guidance for these developments.
That the Urban Design Review Committee review development proposals against
acknowledged Urban Design principles and accepted terms of reference, and then provide
recommendations to the Planning Advisory Committee and Common Council on design
issues. The Review Committee should consist of representatives of Common Council
and the Planning Advisory Committee, representatives of architecture, planning and
design professions, appointed by peer nomination, and members of the community at
large. In order to ensure continuity and build upon this Committee's knowledge, it is
further recommended that that the eligible members of the current Urban Design
Committee make up part of the review board.
In order for the Urban Design Committee and, in future, the Urban Design Review
Committee to continue with our work as mandated by Common Council, resources will
be required to complete the necessary public consultation, legislative amendments, and
drafting of Urban Design guidelines and an appropriate review process.
II
114
a","
Oil]
0
E2
•
I
IFNI
'A
!P
cd
a�
bA
d'
U
cd
cd
r--4
U
O
u
U
-4-J
-4-J
tO
1
r
.W
U
H
r
cd
r
.W
U
H
r
cd
U
-4-J
r
O
LJ
O
-4-J
cd
U
co
r
.0
cd
N
0)
10
MI
u
co
U
W
r
cd
co
0
cd
U
0
U
N
'u
U O �
r o r
�
0 o O �
U (L) w 'D cd
I t +J
o 'c
o U o
4J N Q
4J �u
•.y N U O
U
cd
o U 44 r
v
0
U
O
O
2"s
N
co
q
N
W
O
U
0
0
0
N
0
co
It
4� A
bID
Q Cd
cd
Cd
a
F
W
.5-4 r{
r14 -0
cd r-4
cd
O 0 U
Ur --- 4 O
U
U
. 4 +J
u � �0
� N
U cd
r
cd
c
U
U
U
O W
O
• ,-4 O
U �-4
+ O
cd
• ,--� ( ) 0
U U 0-4
rs:� rs:� r
+-' U
� �
4--,
O + +
cd -4-J U
r r
U 0 Op
.�
U •O
O
U
0
bA
N
Q
0
cd
cd
0
cd
r
cd
U
r
cd
U
cd
Cd
O
a
cd
O
U
cd
O
cd
►�
i
U
O
4J
G�
A4
rn
U
�.y
�1
4-J
•bID
A
N
•,-J
Cd
U
(t.
U
W
.�
cd
bA
O
cd
0
cd
r
cd
U
r
cd
U
cd
Cd
O
a
cd
O
U
cd
O
cd
►�
i
U
O
4J
G�
A4
rn
w•
a
Jw � fa
i
i
I u� ids%
l �
J
Q
1 i
r--4
cd
U
,u
U O
w O .> .�
4� J W >
A 0) r
O O cd U
o a� O
cd +J
cd (�:>dl cd - -,-J
cd r-4
co o c� cd O
O
N
Cd�.
Cd
U
'—' U
O
W
Cd
c� O
Cd r
Cd
U
Cd
O r--4
Cd
U) O
� i
O
IMD
�-q
O
4J
U
.
Cd
U
Cd
44
U
Cd
Cd
M
U
•�
O
v
c�
Cd
Cd
r
0
4J
O
O
cd
Cd
+,
4�
O
cd
>
�D
Cd�.
Cd
U
'—' U
O
W
Cd
c� O
Cd r
Cd
U
Cd
O r--4
Cd
U) O
� i
0
JMD
U
0
•� a
Cd U
cd
OV4 4J y o '~
Q O o
o
� o
Cd
l
-J
t
U
cd �
cd
-4- J I
t� W
O
r�
U U
�-4-J
O
O
-4-J �
�-q U
O .0
� O
O a
0
U
r-4
r-4
• rl
n
U U
U
O
�-, +�
cd
cd
o
.0 .o
cd
L O
O +;
N �
> cd
•
r.
N
co
0
IOD
'ran
U
.ry
Q
Cd
cd
O
Vw1'
•�
Q
a
o
�
a
x
�
�
Cdw
co
co
n�
n�
LO
o
CO
�co
co
y
0
cd
a�
y
1l•�J
J
O
V
O
O •�
4!�
O
•�i
•
W D
I
N
•
W D
I
LO
Cd
Cd
-4-J
`V
W
Cd
•
b
r
p
�^
0
Cd
_O
.>
O
O'•
u
Cd
O
Cd
0
`V
r
bio
r
O
�J
4J
Cd
,�
cd
U
�,
4-j
Cd
N
��
Cd
Cd
Cd
O
•�
•�
O
u
o
Cd
ct
cam,
r
OU
O
Q
p
4--,
O
O
.p
C
:�
0
+,
_�
N
Cd
.o
Cd
u
o
o
O
cd
cd
U
•
W D
I
LO
U
0! \ ;
cd co
>
O O r1
4� O cd
N1-+ 4-j U
bL
U U
�O O . >
O U +�
>�
�Cd
co
Cd
o c
Ici
U o
cd > U
.w Cd •�
0 4� cd
1 �1
O O
O O
C Cd
u
c cd u
cd
.� c .o
U � O U .�
• ,- 4 U • ,--1 V�
O O
a�
1q p
�h
IN�
r
Cd
Vf
O
0
U
O
-4-'
O
,r
Cd
U
O
-4-J
'
b0
U
O
OV4
�-,
4-4
O
.,--{
O
�-4
Cd
W
U
Cd
cd
Q
0.40-1
O
OU
>
U
O
O
�.,
cd
U
N
'V
r
-0
cd
cd
O
U
4-j
co
O
Cd
O
U
V
cd
O�
_
co
cd
>
U
W
Cd
Cd
Cd
cd
U
cd
Ici
Ici
E--4
E--4
IN�
r
Cd
O
0
J-j
Cd
O
-4-'
O
,r
Cd
U
o
Cd
O
OU
U
O
U
N
'
Cd
•�
cd
Cd
O
U
IN�
O
O u
4J cd
Cd 4-J
0
U
O♦, �
V -4-J
a�
cd• •
co
O
cd U
�
U
W
O � �
W
-J
U U
•
r-4 • -0
�--�
> U
� O
cd
Q U U
U
a �
cd o
�-4 aL
�D u 0
O
cd '
Cd �
O -4-J
cd
Ici
Cd
0
Cd
U
O
U
U
bio
0)
0
Cd
�-1
Cd
-4-J U
r Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd u
N � bio
Cd
U
c N
�D a
Cd
cd v 0
ro cd .
IN�
00
x
O
ti
0
cd
0
•.y
0
bA
Q
0
cd
N
O
O
cd
E--4
CZ•
O
N
!04
IN�
rn
Committee of the Whole
March 9, 2009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
And Members of Common Council:
SUBJECT: Presentation on South End Playground Concept Plan
BACKGROUND:
In 2008, The Glenn Group, Landscape Architects, where engaged to lead the South End
Community in a series of meeting to consider revitalizing the South End Playground. Two
meetings were held and a concept plan was developed and is presented here for Council's
consideration.
ANALYSIS:
The South End Playground is located on Broad Street and is the only multiple use park in
the City's South End. The park has received various upgrades over the years but concern
was stressed by the neighbourhood that it no longer serves a wide range of residents and
enhancements are needed. The park is located in a priority neighbourhood. A copy of the
presentation with the details of the plan is attached for Council's consideration.
FINANCIAL:
The estimated cost for this project is $2,339,000. However, this project is at a concept
stage and fiirther analysis of the site is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that this report and presentation be received and filed.
Respectfidly submitted,
Bernie orrison
Commissioner of Leisure Services
Terrence L. Totten, C.A.
City Manager
130
The 01yof Safia John.
gy
C\j
L.
xn
0
O
LL
% E III, III, III,
Z�.
V)
xn
>
ko.)
xn
0
O
LL
% E III, III, III,
CSC
III,
O
O
xn
III,
(\I
CL
3:
0
E
a
ot
00
0
0
C\l
00
C\l
L.
0
La,
C14
�2
Z�.
CSC
III,
O
O
xn
III,
(\I
CL
3:
0
E
a
ot
00
0
0
C\l
00
C\l
L.
0
La,
C14
�2
i
O
O
x
O
O
xn
O CA)
s s
V
xn
>1 CA)
xn xn x
L O
o > > Ljj V)
d �
r
xn
O
V
Z
i
M
Y
L
D
O.
O
.v
CL
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
�o
0
0
>1
0
xn
xn
0
xn
Q
xn
xn
0
QJ
Jc
N
to
xn
0
�o
0
0
Z�.
0
xn
�o
0
0
0
L.
co
xn
%e
xn
xn
0
4-
0
Z�.
0
LL
Q
0
L.
co
xn
%e
xn
xn
0
4-
0
CL
3:
0
E
a
ot
00
0
0
00
O
La,
Z�.
CL
3:
0
E
a
ot
00
0
0
00
O
La,
�r
xn
O
V
N
xn
�
V) n�
v I
O
O
•
�--�
•
N
F�1
v I
L
O
O
O
•
M
O
N
xn
VI
•
�--�
•
N
v I
L
O
O
O
•
M
LO
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
E
CL
00
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
LO
r
LO
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
E
CL
00
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
LO
Y
L
D
CL
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
r
Y
L
D
CL
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
Y
L
D
CL
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
r
Y
L
D
CL
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
..
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
00
r
..
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
00
. ..................
.............
..............
-- - -- -----
. . . . . . . . . .
L.
0
0
O
O
E III, III, III, III,
roa
CL
3:
0
CL
00
0
0
C\l
00
C\l
L.
0
La,
rn
xn
xn
LL
0
DC
Y
co
0
0
CO
N
CO
a.
Q
0
O
O
E III, III, III, III,
roa
CL
3:
0
CL
00
0
0
C\l
00
C\l
L.
0
La,
rn
f
fiSVP
o.'w
-led
i:
z
.j
CL
CL
LLI
z
0
NVO
CL
0
V-1
CL
3:
0
00
0
0
00
O
La,
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
N
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
LO
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
NO
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
Y
L
D
CL
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
i
i
lei
/
m
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
.a
ot
00
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
,410
m
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
.a
ot
00
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
�
� . .
.y
.y
� � ?
� a .
� � 2
ai »
�
O
�
�
�
0
CL
3
0
�
E
.a
ot
00
O
O
�
s
�
00
�
L
�
�
0
�
Q
L
\
N
L
D
0.
3
0
.v
CL
00
0
0
N
s
}
00
N
L
N
O
}
U
La,
u
ii!v'N
N
L
D
0.
3
0
.v
CL
00
0
0
N
s
}
00
N
L
N
O
}
U
La,
u
N
N
L
D
0.
3
0
.v
N
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
N
LO
F, -!
V%/
N
N
L
D
0.
3
0
.v
N
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
N
LO
yplmll
r
I`
1�
id
F, -!
yplmll
r
I`
1�
ti'1 � Itlr '�7mu!W W'rww kWd.
4 $l
IN, ."
M
N
L
D
CL
^O
y
�i
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
0
U
La,
u
r
F, -!
V%/
r /
ti'1 � Itlr '�7mu!W W'rww kWd.
4 $l
IN, ."
M
N
L
D
CL
^O
y
�i
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
0
U
La,
u
r
r �
I i«e
a
auk ➢�,r�ouuN 6 r.�
u
u r�
,
hen fl� Syr 41 g
Al
jI
f � U
-
r
o
I
I
M.
r
�o
6
............................... .... .. �7l
�
a
W r
a u
< e
rr"
F
r OA,
d dl
a
y
I"i Iir� er le J
a
N
L
D
CL
O
ot
00
0
O
s
00
N
L
N
O
}
U
La,
u
LO
N
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
F, -!
V%/
LO
N
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
All
k
Ilk
'
�O
N
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
F, -!
V%/
r /
�O
N
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
m...........
NMI
viii
CL
3:
0
E
a
ot
00
0
0
00
O
La,
ti
Y
L
D
CL
O
i
.v
ot
00
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
00
%;;
Y
L
D
CL
O
i
.v
ot
00
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
00
O�
N
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
F, -!
V%/
O�
N
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
0
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
0
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
N
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
.v
L.L
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
N
�i
iir r
� Er,
N
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
.v
L.L
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
N
M
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
F,!
Vi/
r
M
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
IimV mu'' °VIII �I
24
�r
�tia e,
M
Y
L
D
CL
3
O
E
.v
CL
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
LO
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
LO
F,!
Vi/
r
LO
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
LO
�O
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
ot
00
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
F,!
Vi/
�O
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
ot
00
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
e ,
/l
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
%;;
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
O�
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
F,!
Vi/
r
O�
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
a
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
0
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
�a
i
N
L
D
0.
3
0
.v
N
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
N
ti
M
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
7z
Oe
OF
g
ma
m I
gg j Vs. t
IrM 0
MAE
W,
CL
3:
0
CL
00
0
0
00
O
La,
ti
"s-
"L"ouk
MAE
W,
CL
3:
0
CL
00
0
0
00
O
La,
ti
LO
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
LO
Vi/
r
LO
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
LO
. \.
\ \ :
7771",
«
�
� . .
, a
� ; d
\�
�� \ \�
�� \
H
�
�
0
CL
3
0
�
�
.�
�
00
O
O
�
s
�
00
�
L
�
�
0
�
Q
L
E
Y
L
D
CL
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
H
CL
3:
0
CC
00
0
0
00
O
La,
00
e
L
D
CL
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
0
LO
L
D
0.
3
0
CC
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
LO
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
r
00
O
O
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
U
La,
u
i
i%
N
ri
i
,410
0
' / ,`
q4
/
i,/r
i
i%
N
ri
i
N
Lid
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
.v
L.L
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
}
U
La,
u
N
,410
N
Lid
Y
L
D
0.
3
0
.v
L.L
00
0
0
N
s
00
N
L
N
O
}
U
La,
u
N
Committee of the Whole
March 9, 2009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
And Members of Common Council:
SUBJECT: Shamrock Park Master Plan
BACKGROUND:
In 2008, Council provided funding for a redevelopment plan for Shamrock Park as part of
the Leisure Services Capital Program. This project was awarded to the Glenn Group,
Landscape Architects, Fredericton, NB
ANALYSIS:
Shamrock Park has served the community for a number of years but has not seen any major
work since 1985 when it was redeveloped for the Canada Games. Shamrock Park is one of
the City's most used sporting venues as well as being situated in a priority neighbourhood.
In the Call for Proposals for Shamrock Park is was emphasized that the park needed to
reflect greater use for the neighbourhood as well as enhancements as a sporting venue.
Two meetings were held with the community and the various sporting organizations to seek
input and verification of the plans. The plan will be presented by Dan Glenn of The Glenn
Group. Attached is a copy of the presentation.
FINANCIAL:
The estimated total costs for this projects is $8,655,000 and is designed in such a way that it
could be phased in over a number of years.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that this report and presentation be received and filed.
Respectfidly submitted,
Bernie orrison
Commissioner of Leisure Services
Terrence L. Totten, C.A.
City Manager
183
The 01yof Safia John.
Pr
I
" AM
a
r,
r
r
f
r
0
a�
a�
a�
a�
a�
0
Le
a�
d
0
0
W
Al
O
a�
0
O
a�
a�
a�
N
O
I
a�
a
a�
a�
a�
a�
a�
0
Le
a�
a�
e�
a
a�
In
a�
a�
W
U
Le
R,
i
a�
0
W
O
C�
V
V
O
C�
O
V
a�
W
0
a�
C�
W
nM
FBI
v
U
0
a�
a�
a�
a
0
U
a�
a�
0
0
0
a�
a�
Al
wm,
CJ
C.7
C5
I
LO
a
r
i
r
r
i
T
O
—j
73
O
O
U �
_U
4
� U
� U
v� U
bA
� ct
U �
ct U
4—j
� � O
3 ct
ct
3
a�
.� . Ct ..
Ct a�
ct
ct
a�
ct ap
o ct
E o 3
jo
ct ct ct
ct 4-j ct
bJJ O c� `r' d U 3 ct 'd
4-r `i' Ct ct c 4-j
ct p ct sue• O ^�' O a� OC.) a�
ct 4-j
� ct ' � � o � � � o �
73 th 73
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
wm,
Ica
C.7
C5
I
a
a
ad
p
^"
u
� rya
WA
m
�
a
uo
1
G
'
•rr
q
P
WA
OA
CD
CJ
I
1
CJ
I
O
O
CJ
I
I
R
� \2\
x0mumalmoxam" AM
$ \�
WR
� \ \�\
I
2
C14
!�
O
O
CJ
I
u
to
ct
ct
;Z
an
CJ
I
CJ
I
CJ
I
FRENNI/
/55
I
a
1
r'IP'1i
1
1
wm,
CJ
C.7
C5
I
rn
rn
CJ
I
ca
I
nf-
L f
CJ
I
All,
w1�
ICI
1
O
r'IP'1i
1
Cam,
III
C�
V
rC�
1
C�
1
7
f
�y
ri
CJ
C.7
C5
I
CJ
I
CJ
I
CJ
I
x0mumalmoxam" AM
O
CJ
I
r-
C)
C14
Ca
CJ
I
x0mumalmoxam" AM
I
I,
. . ............. .
......................
. .. .......
r.
47,
I
I,
Ca
CJ
I
�2
C14
............
1 7/1
CJ
I
............
1 7/1
CJ
I
............
1 7/1
CJ
I
ch
C14
a
I
CJ
I
I
CJ
I
CJ
I
Ell
I
CJ
I
CJ
I
CJ
I
I
CJ
I
I
CJ
I
CJ
I
CJ
I
CJ
I
" AM
a
°O °O °O ° °
O O
O O Lr) W N rl
N rl 00 m rl
i/? i/? c-I i/? c-I
-Ln -Ln
Ln
0
0
0)
PTE
C3
0
0)
iwl
af
UL
u
L 10
W1D
0
a-+
PTE
0
0
0
CL
u
WD u
u
LLJ 1
u
a�
aJ
co -a
Q)a�y
0) Q)
Q(Ti Qo
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
m O m O m O O O m O O O m m
O m rl m N m w O rl m O O N r-I
r -I 00 m N m -Ln m :T m m r -I N -Ln -Ln
I
PTE
0
0
a-+
� W1D
PTE u
Ln
LJ
..&_- LLJ
RA) �
-
PTE
j
PTE
U C-
C3 4-
PTE �
PTE �
m
0
s..
CL
W1D
u
4-
c
LLJ
W1D
4-
Ln
4-
W1D
IR
ft
R
r
41
0
.__6
PTE
C3
PTE
C3
PTE s..
a u
41
c :3
LLJ 0
PTE u
0 0
0 >
u 0
PTE �
i
O
O
O
Ln
Ln
00
(f}
m
-I--
ca
I
U "` •U
U "� "i
LO
N
N