By Shawn Logan
The Eagle
Town councillors appear divided on the fate of the Cochrane Planning Commission (CPC), with some hoping input from a Jan. 11 public hearing will help determine the future of the mostly volunteer body that currently acts as the town’s subdivision and development authority.
In a 4-3 vote Dec. 12, council gave first reading to a plan that will shift subdivision authority to town council and development authority to planning staff. The CPC would be retained — with the public membership increased from five to seven people — but would only act as an advisory body.
But what looked to be solid support for the proposal last month has eroded somewhat with some councillors now suggesting the upcoming public hearing — 7 p.m., Jan. 11, at the Cochrane RancheHouse — could sway their decision.
Coun. Jeff Genung, who called for the changes to the CPC, said his only motivation was to improve the process.
“It’s not broken, it’s just something that needs to be improved upon,” he said, noting the town will handle a number of new applications in the coming months and “another layer of complexity” will help ensure the best decisions are made.
He said the proposal has been the victim of “misinformation,” adding the CPC would still play a crucial role in the process “but not make the decisions.”
Another way to improve the town’s planning procedures may also surface at the public hearing, Genung said.
“It’s far from a done deal,” he said. “Even through this public hearing process, council may find a variation of what’s being proposed that works. We’re just working for a better system.”
The current CPC includes five publicly-appointed members and two councillors as voting members. Members of the planning staff advise the board but do not vote.
A review of municipal planning commissions across Alberta, presented to council Oct. 17, suggested no preferred method existed. Of the 49 communities surveyed, most (24) included a mix of public members and councillors while a significant number (17) consisted entirely of town councillors.
But some of Genung’s fellow councillors, as well as current and former CPC members, say the current system works just fine.
One councillor, who originally supported the proposed changes, is concerned that removing the public face from the decision-making process could be a detriment.
“I think it’s about control,” said Coun. Andy Marshall. “I have as much faith in the planning commission doing something as council. It’s in the balance right now and I’m not all that optimistic for it, actually.”
Marshall said he supported the plan initially because he “tried to be open to all possibilities,” but now worries it will set up “another layer of bureaucracy.”
Another issue that has entered the debate is a proposal from town staff to increase its “variance authority” from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. This authority allows officials to grant exceptions to limits imposed in the Land Use Bylaw (LUB), ie., the number of parking stalls, building height, setbacks.
Marshall noted this would give planning staff the ability to, for example, allow two additional floors on an eight-storey project, the current building height limit in the LUB.
He said the variance proposal was “thrown in at the end” by staff despite a 6-1 vote against a similar plan — to increase the variance from 10 per cent to 25 per cent for the development authority — during debate over the new LUB on July 11, 2005.
When Marshall questioned the legitimacy of the increased variance during a debate Dec. 12, Mayor Ken Bech ruled against him, allowing it to stand.
“I think it was a little out of line in that (staff) hadn’t mentioned a word of it,” Marshall said. “There was no explanation as to why that would come forward. Administration, I think, got a wink and a nod.”
Coun. Truper McBride, who sits on the CPC, has been a vocal opponent of the proposed changes, suggesting it places elected politicians in the unwise position of having to administer their own policy.
“Government shouldn’t be involved in creating policy and rules, then go out and implement those rules,” he said. “You end up in situations when you have less consistency in those rules. If there’s a neutral third party doing it, you don’t have the ability to change it.”
McBride said when council begins to take the reins of administering the details “you end up politicizing the entire process.”
“If they’re concerned about (these things) maybe they should resign from council and get a job in administration.”
Like Marshall, McBride was also concerned about the proposed 25 per cent variance for planning staff.
He noted if that is applied to a large development such as a Wal-Mart “that 25 per cent is quite significant.”
Ultimately, McBride said relieving the CPC of its decision-making ability will erode public confidence as well as interest in its predecessor.
“This is one of our most popular committees and the first repercussion is (the public) will lose some influence in the planning process,” McBride said. “All they can do (as an advisory body) is sit around and have a nice little debating club.”
While council debates the merits of retaining the current process or adopting a new one, the impact has already been felt on the CPC. Former member Grace Vanden Berg walked away from the body upon hearing a majority of council was considering removing the decision-making ability.
“I feel if we’re going to have no vote, we’re just going to be wasting the time of applicants,” Vanden Berg said. “I don’t agree with the change. It gives council and the planning department too much power.”
She said there has long been rumblings from council and staff that the public aspect of the CPC may be in jeopardy.
“I think the planning department has had this on (its) mind for a long time and has been persuading town council,” Vanden Berg said. “I think it’s dangerous.”
John Doell is the current chair of the CPC and while he opposes the change, he suggests council isn’t out of line to try and improve the process.
But council is moving too fast, he said.
“I feel the whole thing is being rushed and I don’t see the need to rush,” Doell said. “I consider this to be a literal overhaul. It’s close to being radical.”
During its regular meeting last week, CPC members discussed the proposed changes and how it will impact the planning process.
Doell said members of the CPC will speak at the public hearing so council is aware of their concerns.
Chief among his concerns is “shutting out” the public from planning decisions. He said making public members an advisory body is vastly different than the current set up that includes viewpoints from politicians and the public.
And the “apolitical” nature of public members on the CPC may be a better fit, especially on politically-charged issues.
“I think being good politicians, they’re going to gauge public opinion (in making decisions),” Doell said. “Politicians have to decide things a certain way that the public wouldn’t make the same way.”
Ken Hutchinson, an architect who served on the CPC for five years including two as chair, said the public board has made some significant contributions to town planning over the years and the plans to change its make-up are “disturbing.”
“I believe the public, through various members of the planning commission, have contributed a great deal to the community,” he said. “I see this as a desire to remove planning issues from the public eye.”
He said the CPC during his tenure was responsible for pushing the town for reasonable municipal reserve lands from developers, where formerly the town only seemed to receive “strips along the roads.”
The planning commission also provides a valuable second set of eyes for details that may be missed by town planners, something Hutchinson said has happened from time to time.
The suggestion that retaining the CPC as an advisory body would arguably increase the public’s ability to influence decision making rings hollow for Hutchinson.
“A vote’s a vote. An advisory body can say whatever it wants but a vote’s a vote,” he said. “When you have a mixed (planning commission) you’re going to have a more balanced point of view.”
The proposal has also drawn fire from the Riverview Community Association, which sent a letter to the mayor and council opposing the proposed plan. It appeared in the Dec. 7 Cochrane Eagle.
Cliff Mashford, president of the association, declined to comment further on the matter last week but noted he would speak on behalf of Riverview at the public hearing.
With the outcome of a council vote uncertain, Coun. Mary Lou Davis, who voted to give the proposed changes first reading, said she still has many questions before she makes up her mind.
“There are two sides,” Davis said. “One is that council needs to be responsible and take responsibility for decisions that are made. From the other side, I don’t want to see the public feel they have no input on development issues.”
She said there may be nothing wrong with the current CPC and it may be just a matter of poor “implementation.”
“I supported the issue coming forward because I wanted to take a look at it but we have to find a way to have that valuable public input. Maybe it’s fine the way it is and just needs tweaking.”
RSS SUBSCRIBE