The proponent held a community engagement session a number of weeks back that included fairly detailed (and lovely) plans. Going to be a great project.

Sure sure, slip that in quietly months after the fact and don't even link to the community engagement site. LOL

Psst, I found it.

Post to follow.
 
Community Engagement Site: https://bathurstbridgman.ca/engagement/

From the above: (the slides are set up so as to not to be directly enlargeable; I may come back to that by editing them, or other may feel free to do that!.)

1696535422022.png


1696535504290.png


1696535545050.png


1696535596113.png


1696535624961.png


1696535655695.png


1696535691775.png


1696535721941.png


1696535755144.png


1696535787973.png


1696535820890.png


1696535852224.png


1696535878997.png
 
Last edited:
@jfinnson I have now modified the thread title to reflect 1175 being included in the proposal as that's what the panels above seem to indicate.
 
Last edited:
The worst part of this post Bill-109 world is that we won’t be seeing applications on the AIC until they are basically ready to be approved. Much less public transparency on the design evolution now - we will basically never see public facing revisions to projects as developers won’t submit them until they have staff on board.
 
I'm certain you're right, but could you get deeper into the weeds and explain to us non-experts why?

A discussion in the Henning thread would likely be revelatory:


In essence, Bill 109 included several features, but one of note is that if a municipality doesn't arrive at a decision on a development quickly, they must refund the application fees.

The result, according to the discussion I linked is that we're going to see a flurry of new Refusal reports for applications that aren't in a state to be approved.

That will trigger lots of costs and appeals by developers; to avoid same, they will now carry out the same process you're used to seeing post-application (community and stakeholder meetings and back and forth with Planning) prior to actually submitting the application, so that it can hopefully sail through the process in the required time.

Innsert may have more to add.
 
Last edited:
A discussion in the Henning thread would likely be revelatory:


In essence, Bill 109 included several features, but one of note is that if a municipality doesn't arrive at a decision on a development quickly, they must refund the application fees.

The result, according to the discussion I linked is that we're going to see a flurry of new Refusal reports for applications that aren't in a state to be approved.

That will trigger lots of costs and appeals by developers; to avoid same, they will now carry out the same process you're used to see post-application (community and stakeholder meetings and back and forth with Planning) prior to actually submitting the application, so that it can hopefully sail through the process in the required time.

Innsert may have more to add.
That’s more or less it. Developers won’t be submitting applications unless they are confident they will receive approval or if they want to go to an OLT appeal. If Staff can’t support the application as submitted, they’ll be issuing a refusal report as there is no longer time for the applicant to resubmit to address issues before fee refunds kick in.

We will also likely see a lot more use of holding by-laws to allow the city to basically provide a conditional approval of an application subject to the applicant addressing some technical issues.
 

Back
Top