Our development approval process made simple!

Classic comedy by Gene Miller:

============

Our development approval process made simple

Gene Miller
Times - Colonist
Victoria, B.C.: Jul 10, 1999

We are pleased to introduce our new, more responsive development and rezoning approval process, intended to make things easier and quicker for you. This new process has been designed after a comprehensive review of our own internal procedures and extensive consultation with industry and other interests.

Step One (time frame: 1-2 weeks). Initial discussions and informal concept review with local area planner and approving officer. This step allows the applicant to present to the municipal planners a general idea of the proposed development without spending a lot of time or money. At this stage, the planners will be able to give the applicant a "feel" for the approvability of the proposal, and to provide valuable feedback and guidance about ways in which your proposal -- which may also be described as "this disgusting mess," "this mediocrity," "this ugly boil on society's hide" -- could be modified, thus improving its chances of approval.

This is also the point at which the planners can call you a greedy bastard, ask you if you're criminally insane, tell you "you're dead with this one, man," and hoot audibly from the back office as they describe the "outrageous proposal from that rapacious sociopath" to their colleagues.

Step Two (how much time to you have?) Submission of formal application for development or rezoning. We require 31 complete sets of all materials including plans; full-colour `fly over' topo's; land use/property history back to when Christ was in diapers; First People's artifacts search clearance form FPAC-716 (with consulting anthropologist's/archeologist's seal and curriculum vitae enclosed); proof that property is not subject to any native land claims; professionally prepared indigenous tree and plant inventory, including native grass and fungal spore inventory (English and Latin names, please); and a certified cheque or bank draft to cover application processing fees (formula: $1,760 per dwelling unit or subdivided lot multiplied by $21.77 per linear foot of street or road frontage, multiplied by the largest number contained in either the existing or the proposed new zone; or $4,000,000, whichever is smaller).

Step Three (forever). Circulation to relevant departments, community groups and other `stakeholders.' This is an opportunity to weigh the pros (if any) and cons of your proposal and to give the immediate community and any other affected groups (Ruby-Throated Warbler Protection Society, Friends of Salal, Free Tibet Coalition, Concerned Citizens Opposed to Density, etc.) a chance to comment, should they wish to do so.

Since the purpose of this feedback is to refine and improve your proposal, copies of all department reports, comment letters, briefs, threats of injunction or litigation, protest placards, etc. are available for your review in the municipal clerk's office (there is a small viewing charge) every Tuesday between 10 a.m. and noon. Or maybe it's Wednesdays.

Step Four (a very long time). Presentation to advisory committees. Your development team will be required to present your proposal to, and respond to questions and comments from: Advisory Planning Commission, Advisory Design Panel, Heritage Advisory Committee, Environmental Review Committee, Barriers to Disabled Committee, Pink Stucco Advisory Subcommittee, Zero Heat Loss Advisory Committee, Street Design Committee; Advisory Traffic and Transportation Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, Public Safety Review Group, Global Warming Study Group, the Anti- Racketeering Senate Subcommittee and the Advisory Violence on Television Parents Review Panel.

These committees are purely advisory in nature, and their support is not required for an application to advance toward council consideration. Council maintains a position strictly independent of its advisory committees so that it can look past narrow positions and agendas to make decisions in the best interests of the larger community. For this reason, and this reason alone, council reserves the right to table applications for 20 years of further study and review.

Step Five (time without end). Consideration by council committee of the whole. Applications which have met all of the conditions of earlier steps and found worthy will be considered here for advancement to public hearing. Council, at this stage, also reserves the right to reject an application for public hearing, in which case the applicant may resubmit (commencing with Step 1) within six months or six years (whichever is longer). Fees are not refundable.

Step Six (when the time is right). Application proceeds to public hearing. The proponent's team will have an opportunity at the commencement of the public hearing to make a presentation of the development proposal before council. In the interests of time, applicants should plan to keep the presentation brief (maximum: eight minutes). The public will then have its turn, and the mayor will endeavour to keep speakers from reading into the record each and every one of the five hundred names and addresses on petitions of opposition; from reciting entire chapters of technical studies which underscore the social, economic and environmental damage your development will cause; from reading verbatim heart wrenching letters of opposition written by seniors too frail or infirm to attend the meeting; and will limit to no more than three minutes any spontaneous, emotional standing ovations and applause in behalf of people who speak against your proposal.

In conclusion, these new procedures have been designed to `level the playing field' in the development and rezoning application process, and to make it a `win-win' between the municipality, the community and you, the miscreant. Sorry, the applicant.

Beauty, eh? Thanks for digging this out, Holden -- it's very good. And scary, considering it was written nearly 10 years ago -- just how much has changed, anyway?

While he's approaching the problem of retarding development from the perspective of the committees & hoops that proponents must pass through, it struck me that there's some resonance between what Miller is describing and the Demographia argument (which I posted in the [url=http://www.vibrantvictoria.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26155#26155:82104]Affordable Housing[/url:82104] thread today) that the wrong kind of zoning makes housing costs escalate. (I don't agree with Demographia when they finger land use policies as the cause of all escalation in housing costs, but zoning obviously shapes things.)