posting
04-23-2006, 10:05 PM
Click here (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/article.php?id=373) to see an article on the City of Kingston Planning Committee Meeting Notes, 2006-04-20
Notes from the April 20, 2006 meeting of the Planning Committee.
A number of significant projects and issues, including the new multiplex planning approvals, were reviewed at the meeting:
The April 20, 2006 meeting of the City of Kingston Planning Committee dealt with several major developments, the city’s proposed multiplex community centre, and a few more “local” land use change applications. Interesting issues arose from some of the applications.
Full details of all applications may be found at http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/committees/planning/agendas.asp
Multiplex Planning
1350 Gardiner’s Road, City of Kingston proposed multiplex community centre public meeting The city itself is the applicant seeking amendments to its zoning bylaws to permit a multiplex centre and maintenance of fewer parking spaces than current zoning bylaws require. Considerable public comment arose from this proposal, primarily focusing on locating this recreational facility in the city’s serviced industrial park at the margins of the city’s urbanized area, and additionally arguing that locating the facility at 1350 Gardiner’s Road encourages urban sprawl. After closure of the public meeting, staff and the chair of the Planning Committee both advised that “the location decision has already been made, by City Council” and it is not open to discussion. Staff and the chair suggested that Planning Committee discussion should be limited to “land use issues.” One citizen had argued that the staff report should have addressed issues such as that the proposed location was inconsistent with provincial policy and the city’s transportation master plan, and did not address legislative obligations related to urban sprawl. The city commissioner sharply rebutted this citizen, advising that the “political decision” re location had already been made, so staff would not reasonably comment on the location. Readers may argue that location is indeed a land use issue. Where a development applicant is the city itself, it is difficult for municipal staff to maintain a balance between the needs of their own employer (the applicant) and the urban planning requirements imposed through their professional training, provincial and city policy, and legislation. Where a city makes a “political decision” with important land use planning implications, this political decision appears to supersede normal planning processes. Planning Committee approved the city’s application.
Notes from the April 20, 2006 meeting of the Planning Committee.
A number of significant projects and issues, including the new multiplex planning approvals, were reviewed at the meeting:
The April 20, 2006 meeting of the City of Kingston Planning Committee dealt with several major developments, the city’s proposed multiplex community centre, and a few more “local” land use change applications. Interesting issues arose from some of the applications.
Full details of all applications may be found at http://www.cityofkingston.ca/cityhall/committees/planning/agendas.asp
Multiplex Planning
1350 Gardiner’s Road, City of Kingston proposed multiplex community centre public meeting The city itself is the applicant seeking amendments to its zoning bylaws to permit a multiplex centre and maintenance of fewer parking spaces than current zoning bylaws require. Considerable public comment arose from this proposal, primarily focusing on locating this recreational facility in the city’s serviced industrial park at the margins of the city’s urbanized area, and additionally arguing that locating the facility at 1350 Gardiner’s Road encourages urban sprawl. After closure of the public meeting, staff and the chair of the Planning Committee both advised that “the location decision has already been made, by City Council” and it is not open to discussion. Staff and the chair suggested that Planning Committee discussion should be limited to “land use issues.” One citizen had argued that the staff report should have addressed issues such as that the proposed location was inconsistent with provincial policy and the city’s transportation master plan, and did not address legislative obligations related to urban sprawl. The city commissioner sharply rebutted this citizen, advising that the “political decision” re location had already been made, so staff would not reasonably comment on the location. Readers may argue that location is indeed a land use issue. Where a development applicant is the city itself, it is difficult for municipal staff to maintain a balance between the needs of their own employer (the applicant) and the urban planning requirements imposed through their professional training, provincial and city policy, and legislation. Where a city makes a “political decision” with important land use planning implications, this political decision appears to supersede normal planning processes. Planning Committee approved the city’s application.