Apartment Transition Area

with one comment

 
The notice copied below was issued today. The staff report referred to is available at

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20151215/documents/p3.pdf

Note: a policy report does not offer an opportunity to speak to Council. Typically such a report is referred to public hearing at a later date (likely mid-January 2016). Eye on Norquay comment will be posted after further analysis.
 

     from:  Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Program 
     date:  Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:04 PM
  subject:  Norquay Apartment Transition Area - Proposed new zone (RM-9A)
            to replace rezoning policy
mailed-by:  vancouver.ca

 
Dear Norquay community member,

December 9, 2015 —  Further to the community open house held in September 2015,
staff have prepared a report to Council recommending that new zoning (RM-9A/9AN)
replace the existing “Norquay Village – Apartment Transition Area Rezoning Policy.”

The staff report is now available on the City’s website (See Policy Reports, Item #3).


City of Vancouver
453 W 12th Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5Y 1V4
norquayvillage@vancouver.ca

You are receiving this email as someone who has expressed interest in Norquay Village. 

 

Advertisements

Written by eyeonnorquay

9 December 2015 at 9:30 pm

Posted in CoV Documents, News

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The problem with the new RM-9A proposal is that it “streamlines” or “fast-tracks” developments. This is not a desirable trend, as it essentially means cutting the public input opportunities out, to a large extent. Under current zoning, development applications must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with notices in the paper, public open houses, opportunities for dialogue with the planning department, and a chance to address city council. Under the new zoning proposals, much of these opportunities for public involvement will be removed unless a person happens to know about a specific development and takes the time to contact the city — and city council may or may not allow people to address the issue at a council meeting.

    Essentially, the rezoning will mean that as long as the Director of Planning finds a development to be suitable and it meets basic guidelines, it will likely be approved, even with no public input at all. This is a marked digression from the usual democratic process — which, in my opinion, offers only minimal opportunities for community involvement as it is. The new zoning would cut out public input almost entirely and leave development decisions in the hands of the city planners. This is a bad precedent to set, as the chance for the public to be involved in urban development and to directly shape the direction our cities will take, is a fundamental component of democracy. Are we going to stand back and let this happen?

    If we are no longer easily able to know about what is being planned in our neighbourhoods, then that means we are leaving virtually all the control (ideas about design, density, aesthetics, suitability, and whether it fits with the character of a neighbourhood) in the hands of government and city planners, with only a top-down approach to city planning. I encourage people to realize the implications of such rezoning. This is not to say all development is bad, and certainly some development proposals will be justified. But they should still be assessed on a case-by-case basis, which is how things will proceed if the current zoning in Norquay remains as it is.

    You can see for yourself the differences between the current zoning and the proposed new zoning in the report that was presented at the 2015 open house. That report states, “By creating a district schedule or zone, the need for a rezoning process is removed.” What it fails to say is that most of the public input would also be removed and this is not right. See page 4 of this 10-page document: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/norquay-village-plan-rm-9a-zone-sep-2015-open-house-information-displays.pdf

    Some argue in favour of the current proposal, because it allows for more structural diversity. While this might very well have merit, my issue (and I know I speak for many) is with how the application process for development in the area will be handled. Anyone who cares about development plans and the democratic process should be watching this issue closely, especially on Tuesday, December 15, 2015, when the report will go before council.

    I hope people will plan on attending the Public Hearing, which the application recommends, and which I think will be held in early 2016.

    Marilyn Hogan

    14 December 2015 at 5:37 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s