Who Gets to Decide?
by Melanie Swailes on behalf of the Development and Transportation Committee
I wish the word “NIMBY” (Not in My Backyard) would stop popping up in media reports on some recently proposed redevelopments. This pre-supposes that any redevelopment must be good or desirable, and that residents opposing it are self-centred or hostile to any change. NIMBY has become a convenient way to dismiss opposition without examining the reasons why.
Often it is the scale of what is being proposed that causes the opposition: in many cases area residents support redevelopment, as long as it is appropriate and contextual to the area. But who gets to decide the meaning of “contextual” or “appropriate”?
Some recent examples: In January, in the West District area, a development company announced that it would be applying to change the approved area plan, which limits condos to ten storeys, so that it could build up to 30 storeys. In December, the Glenmore Landing redevelopment was narrowly defeated by Council: it would have allowed up to 15 towers, ranging from 11 to 30 storeys. At the time of writing, the Viscount Bennett site will soon go before Council, proposing eight buildings up to 16 storeys high. In each case, it has not been a question of whether the land should be densely developed, but rather opposition based on the sheer size and intensity of the use on that property.
Residents are not NIMBYs when they oppose something whose scale they could not have anticipated and when they feel that local context has not been considered. Existing communities are not blank slates. “Community character” can be a difficult concept to define. What I’ve noticed is that in general, the further away you are from a redevelopment, the less likely you are to be impacted. You may even support the proposed redevelopments because there may be some potential benefit to you and certainly no harm. How much input should the local area have?
A good example of a community rallying against a development occurred in Lakeview in 2016, when McDonald’s wanted to build a 24-hour restaurant/drive-thru at the corner of 63 Avenue and Crowchild Trail SW, in Lakeview Plaza. The application was strongly opposed by the community (through petitions, letters, submissions to City Council) and was turned down by the Planning Department, but McDonald’s appealed. Ultimately, a multi-day SDAB (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board) hearing result agreed that a development permit should not be issued, and the proposal was turned down.
Look up the SDAB Decision and read the lengthy case: 2016 CGYSDAB 59 (CanLII) | SDAB2016-0059 (Re) | CanLII. The majority of community residents felt the proposed development would negatively impact their area, but there were also a few submissions in support of the McDonald’s. You might not want a McDonald’s or other high-use business next door, but you might eagerly support the same business a few blocks away. Who gets to decide what is appropriate or not suitable for an area?
This is one of the difficulties with Councillors voting on rezoning applications. Often, the vote is for a community far away, possibly an unfamiliar area: voting on a significant change in other communities is an easier decision than in your own. Likewise, a new eight-plex unit a few blocks away doesn’t impact you at all, but if it is next door, the massing and shadowing might destroy your ability to grow your garden, or might render your expensive solar panels ineffective. Weighing the often-competing interests of residents, would-be residents, and developers is difficult. Residents are usually not opposed to all change – the feedback we receive is often along the lines of “I’d be okay with two storeys, but not three” or “Why can’t we make sure that some of the big trees are retained?” It is those nuances that matter.
Discretionary Permits allow for community feedback. Ideally, citizen engagement would include a meaningful review process that shows how the development team actually listened to concerns, and more importantly, acted on them by incorporating some of the feedback to evolve the plans. Perhaps NIMBYism reflects a failure on the part of planners and developers to involve the local community in meaningful ways in the first place.
Does this mean that nothing would ever get built? No, not at all. Rather, it would put more onus on the developer to ensure that a proposed development “fits” into the area without a drastic change. Context changes gradually over time.
Your input should matter if you will be impacted by a new development. There are existing statutory guidelines in the Land Use Bylaw and in the Municipal Development Plan that reference sensitive and contextual redevelopment. But in order for it to matter, you have to speak up (submit comments, call for more information, voice your concerns). Decisions will be made one way or another. Don’t be afraid to speak out to support the things you love about your community!
Contact the BCA at [email protected] or at 403-284-3477.
Click here to the Brentwood Community News home page for the latest Brentwood community updates.
