In a few weeks, city staff will propose new guidelines to streamline the process to approve outdoor patios. That can’t happen soon enough because under the existing procedure councillors can’t do their jobs properly.
A patio project on the corner of Elgin and MacLaren streets has already revealed a serious flaw in how council enforces bylaws and approves development affecting particular wards.
It started in 2006, when MacLaren’s pub on Elgin Street applied for permission to build a patio and was rejected because of a bylaw that prohibits patio construction within 30 metres of a residential property.
Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes also argued on behalf of residents who complained the noise would ruin their quiet neighbourhood.
In spite of Holmes’s objections, the plan came back with a vengeance when the transportation committee overruled her decision and exempted MacLaren’s from the city’s encroachment bylaw in fall of 2010.
MacLaren’s owner had successfully persuaded River Ward Coun. Maria McRae to support his proposal and present it to the committee. Holmes could do nothing but express her frustration at the decision.
It is worrying enough that a councillor from outside Centretown can find a loophole to approve a project in the ward of a councillor that rejects it. Even more worrying is that it’s happening again.
Earlier this month, the Fox & Feather, across the street from MacLaren’s, made a similar application to the city’s transportation committee through Innes Coun. Rainer Bloess.
As with the MacLaren’s patio, Holmes rejected the project but it hasn’t stopped the owner or Bloess from applying for a waiver.
The city’s bylaw and the role of the ward councillor have been subverted by a technical glitch that permits people with no stake in the community to shape policy affecting it.
But the issue of patios in Centretown raises a much larger question about the impact elected officials can have when councillors with little stake or interest in the ward can overrule their decisions.
A local councillor’s role is that of an advocate to represent the interests of their constituents. Among the most basic should be the ability to ensure compliance with bylaws that protect the interests of residents.
When projects that affect the ward are turned over to a committee made up of representatives from outside, it assaults the rationale for electing local officials at all. A process that undermines a councillor’s ability to approve or reject projects that have consequences for their constituents weakens the principle of representative governance.
In the case of patios – or other developments that may disrupt people’s lives – local councillors are expected to serve the needs of their communities. But the current arrangement makes it difficult for them to do this. In the interest of representative governance, the city needs to clarify the rules around referring proposals to committee.
The role of the ward councillor has evolved around the belief that citizens deserve input on decisions that affect their neighbourhoods.But when it comes to patios, councillors and residents are left out in the cold. It’s time to put an end to this.