A Cautionary Tale

ORIGINALLY POSTED Monday, April 2, 2007

I have written two blogs about the Planning Act. They were too dry. Didn't make the point I wanted either. So, they didn't get posted.

This is my third effort . A bit of history has to be included.

Before The Act was passed hardly a day went past without a scandal or a hint of same relating to the development industry.in the headlines. Being suspected of corruption was an occupational hazard for municipal councillors. Even Government Ministers were not immune. Investment in land was a good bet. Nobody was better placed than people in the know.

My neighborhood had 750 homes. The first phase was almost completed when we bought our house. It was said that a particular council member had received a house and a trip to foreign parts in return for favours. I never saw any evidence to suggest it was true. But “When mud is thrown some of it always sticks.”

A Minister of Municipal Affairs resigned his post once because he had inadvertently signed documents for a development in which a family firm was involved. He came back because he had done the honourable thing in resigning. Another Minister whose name was besmirched walked in front of a moving vehicle on Yonge Street one dark and rainy night.

I can't say the loss of public confidence was the sole rationale for The Planning Act. It is certainly true headlines changed after it was passed. Municipal politicians still lost their seats if they were perceived to be too friendly to developers but rumours of corruption definitely declined.

The Act is precise. Steps are clear. Applications are made to Planning Departments. Proponents are wise to seek advice from planners on the Town's Official Plan, Zoning Bylaw and Town Policies and Standards. The process takes months to complete before a plan appears on a Public Planning Meeting Agenda. (The Whitwell development took ten years from start to finish).

At the start of the Hearing, the Clerk must declare it has been properly advertised. The Chairperson instructs the Planners to Report. The proponent is invited to present his case. The public are invited to express their comments. They may do so as often as they have something to say. The chair must announce three times before closing that part of the meeting and opening it to deliberation by council.

The objective is to make it clear to all and sundry, no part of the proposal has been considered before the public meeting .All parties concerned have equal opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.

It is similar to a court proceeding. Evidence is presented, witnesses are heard. A precise record of the proceedings is created.The only hard evidence to be considered is that presented at the Hearing. If error is perceived ,the decision is subject to appeal by the Ontario Municipal Board.

It is also a fact, that owners of land have the right to use their land for any purpose that does NOT contravene the Official Plan, the Zoning Bylaw or endorsed policies and standards of the municipality and provincial legislation.

It is no more appropriate for a councillor to be conducting research prior to a hearing than it is for a judge to conduct an investigation into the innocence or guilt of a person accused of a crime.

And yet - in the last term of council no matter how many times it was explained, Councillors and Citizen Members of the Environmental Advisory Committee persisted that planning applications should be reviewed by their committee first.

This term, it has already been argued, the Economic Development Advisory Committee members should have first dibs at planning applications.

Last week, at the hearing into the application of the York Region Separate School Board to build a High School on land they had purchased for the purpose, one councillor made a statement that he had done a great deal of work and research prior to the meeting. He made an immediate motion to deny the application. It failed.

At the beginning of the last term of council, at the off-site orientation, a presentation was made by an expert in municipal law cautioning councillors about legal pitfalls. Three councillors had boycotted the conference.

So far this term, no such opportunity has been provided to the new council.

In the past, this town has incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs because some people elected to office simply refuse to accept there are limits to their power.