HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-7-90 V%
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
}' a.
REPORT DN: APPLI�jqp# s� �
Res. #
�. By-Law #
(STING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: January 8, 1990
REPORT #: PD— 7 —90 FILE #:
SUB,ECT: PROCEDURES RESPECTING NOTICES
OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD- 7 -90 be received for information.
1. BACKGROUND:
1. 1 At its meeting of November 20, 1989, the General Purpose and
Administration Committee directed Staff to examine the issue
of public notices, citing various concerns raised by residents
who did not receive notices or notices were received too late
for them to appear as delegations.
2 . CURRENT PROCEDURES:
2 . 1 The Planning Act requires Council to hold a public meeting in
respect to a rezoning application, and further requires
notices be sent out to all residents within 400 feet of the
. . .2
�) 4 9
REPORT NO. : PD- 7 -90 PAGE 2
proposed development. Such notices must be sent at least
twenty-one (21) days prior to the public meeting.
2 .2 The above Planning Act requirement is mandatory and Staff have
been following such requirements .
2 . 3 In addition to the Planning Act requirement, Council, in 1982
also adopted a policy requiring the applicant to erect a sign
on the property as additional means to notify the surrounding
residents and others .
2 .4 A Staff Report is prepared for every application that is being
considered under the public meeting process . From time to
time, the Department will receive a written objection or
others may speak against the application at the public
meeting. The Department keeps a complete record of all names
and addresses of those who have either written in an
objection or have spoken to the Committee. Only these persons
will be notified of any subsequent report. The Planning Act
does not require subsequent notices to all residents within
400 feet.
2 .5 However, the Planning Act does provide for the municipality
to call a second public meeting if it deems the changes to the
original proposal are substantial to warrant another public
meeting. Staff is cognizant of this requirement and have in
the past caused a second public meeting to be held for
development applications where applicable.
3 . PROBLEMS RELATED TO CURRENT PROCEDURES:
There are several problems related to the current procedures
and the following comments are an account of these problems .
. . . 3
5 `� Q
REPORT NO. : PD- 7 -90 PAGE 3
3 . 1 When a mailing list is being prepared to circulate notices to
residents within 400 feet, such mailing list is based on the
latest assessment roll information provided to us by the
Assessment office. Occasionally, if someone recently moved
into the neighbourhood, his/her name may not get on the
assessment record for several months, and these residents will
not receive any notices . This is precisely the reason Council
required a sign to be erected on site as additional notice.
3 .2 The major cause of concern relates to notices of subsequent
meeting. This type of notice is sent out only to those
residents who previously voiced their objection and is sent
only after the staff report is completed which usually falls
on a Monday, or about seven (7 ) days prior to the General
Purpose and Administration meeting. Assuming the post office
will deliver the mail within two or three days, the residents
will get their notices either on Wednesday or Thursday and
sometimes may be too late to have their names listed as
delegations . In addition, the residents indicated that they
don't have sufficient time to digest the information.
3 . 3 Another problem relates to revisions made to the original
proposal, particularly those revisions involving increase in
density or housing types . In this situation, the sign that
was previously erected was not amended to reflect the revision
and this causes concerns to the residents .
4 . COMMENTS:
4 . 1 Staff reviewed the matter thoroughly and would like to offer
the following comments on various suggested areas of
improvement.
. . .4
r� Fa 1
REPORT NO. : PD- 7 -90 PAGE 4
4 .2 To ensure all residents are duly notified, and not to rely on
postal service, notices can be hand-delivered to every
household by Staff . However, the Town is not equipped with
this type of manpower and when we consider the tremendous
volume of notices needed to be sent for every General Purpose
and Administration Meeting, this requires additional Staff and
therefore, does not appear to be a feasible alternative.
4 . 3 For those who complain about not receiving any notice at all
while their neighbours get theirs, we can only assume
something has gone wrong after the notices leave our office.
A possible alternative is to send the notice by registered
mail. It will cost $3 .08 as opposed to 38 cents for each
notice. This is a very substantial extra cost to the Town and
considering the volume of notices for each application, this
alternative is not feasible either.
5 . REVISED PROCEDURES
5. 1 In order to rectify the current probems, Staff will be
implementing the following Departmental Procedural changes:
a) THAT notices to residents for all planning applications
to be considered by the General Purpose and
Administration Committee for either denial or approval,
must be mailed at least fourteen ( 14) days prior to the
meeting date; and
b) THAT where there is substantial increases in density or
change to the proposal as a result of revision, the
applicant must revise the signage forthwith and no notice
shall be sent until the signage is amended.
. . .5
552
REPORT NO. : PD- 7 -90 PAGE 5
5 .2 Staff is confident that the above procedural change should
provide ample notice time to the resident. this procedural
change will cause minor delay to processing of a development
application. However, it is deemed necessary to protect the
interest of the general public.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Franklin Wu, M.C. I .P. wrence E. seff, M.C. I.P.
Director of Planning C ief Administrative Officer
and Development
FW*jip
December 7, 1989
553