Skip to content

Mission council adding policy to smooth out relations between developers and neighourhoods

Policy tries to start engagement early so no one gets “blindsided” at a public hearing
30124579_web1_210216-MCR-new-developments-Mission-development-applications_1
The development application for this 152-unit apartment complex on Stave Lake Street brought out a large amount of community opposition when it came before a public hearing on March 22, 2021.

Growth is shifting many Mission neighbourhoods from low to higher-density areas, but a new policy is now in place to make sure that communities and developers don’t feel blindsided by the coming changes.

The Neighbourhood Approach Policy’s (NAP) purpose is twofold: to notify and get the public engaged in development proposals earlier in the process, and to get developers to tailor their proposals to the city’s strategic goals while mitigating negative impacts.

“Mission is transitioning from a single-family neighbourhood to a multi-family hub, and that comes with growing pains and culture changes,” said Coun. Jag Gill on Aug. 15. “It’s not developer versus community, it’s a partnership and collaboration.”

Locals feeling “blindsided” by development projects has been an issue treated with caution by city council since the rejection of a massive 152-unit apartment complex in the Dunsmuir neighbourhood.

The project was compliant with the Official Community Plan (OCP), but a heated public hearing brought out strong resistance from many in the community.

Council has undertaken a series of neighbourhood plans since, trying to avoid a repeat scenario while their long-term goals call for higher densification. Staff considered a neighbourhood plan for the Dunsmuir area, but are waiting until the OCP is reviewed again in 2023.

“After the review next year, we will probably be seeing more neighborhood plans coming in place,” said Mike Dickinson, manager of long range planning and special projects.

The NAP is a refined version of an interim-growth policy passed early this year. It updates communications to provide residents with information about development proposals from an early stage, and puts a set of questions meant to shape development proposals.

The questions are linked to broader community objectives for topics like housing affordability, employment, compatible building design, reducing parking and traffic issues, collaboration and consideration with adjacent developments and properties.

Local residents are able to submit their thoughts or concerns about aspects in proposals from the start, providing some ability to affect change.

Surrey has had a similar policy in place for at least 15 years, according to Dickinson, which gives their staff an “early warning system” when there are major concerns in a community.

He suggested that council could ask developers to host public information sessions prior to public hearings, when projects are of a certain size, out of context with the surrounding community, or require an OCP amendment.

The new approach policy will apply to all areas of Mission, excluding areas under an already adopted neighbourhood plan, until its incorporated into the OCP when it is reviewed next year.

NAP is triggered as soon as a rezoning or development application for an apartment, townhouse, commercial, mixed-use or industrial development is submitted to the city.

“This will be a process whereby it’s embedded in the development application process, and deliberately so at a very early stage,” Dickinson said, adding it is already operating on an informal basis.

It also applies to rezoning of single-family development when 10 or more new lots are created, or when a proposal significantly deviates from a neighbourhood plan.

Coun. Cal Crawford asked what if a certain neighbourhood is totally against any development, or on the flip side, what if a developer did not want to participate in the process.

Mayor Paul Horn said that if a developer acts in good faith and a community is still totally against change, council would have to make the final call.

As for a developer: “You’re risking, first of all, getting four votes against or more; second of all, you’re adding time and money. And I don’t know how an investor is going to feel good about something like that,” Horn said.

Council deferred final adoption of the policy until September, as a number of councillors wanted some tweaks made, such as a one-year review of the policy, changes to language, and adding a question about the new environmental charter, to name a few.