HVRA’s role at the Committee of Adjustment, the Ontario Municipal Board, and on zoning issues generally

When applications for variances to the zoning bylaw are made to the committee of Adjustment, or decisions of the C of A are appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board or there is an application to the City for a bylaw change, there is often pressure on HVRA to ‘act’; to lead a charge; to fight the fight of our members against something they may see as unwanted

HVRA has developed a policy over the years with respect to these matters and it goes like this:

1. In general HVRA seeks to inform our members how to frame a case at any adjudication. We may and often do chair public meetings where both our members and the principals in the project may meet and sort out issues and assemble final positions. If the issues are clear cut and the system appears to be working fine, we do not write or make cause with any party to the application.

2. Although, HVRA in general is not the main player in giving testimony in matters of applications for permits or development, we will from time to time make a case in writing if:
   - the development in question is large enough to have a general effect on more than just a few neighbours
   - there is an over-arching principle that needs to be emphasized at adjudication time
   -or the system appears to be ‘broken’ and the failings of the bureaucracy need to be addressed.

3. For the record, from 2000 to 2006:
   - We have appeared at OMB 3 times and we have been successful each time
   - We have appeared at C of A about 20 times on matters we think important to the whole of HVRA
   - In cases such as the Brunswick House or Comfort Zone, we have held public meetings co-chaired by the councillor- the object here is to ensure that good process ensues. In essence we let the neighbours ask the hard questions and let the consensus of the meeting decide how it will go It must be emphasized, that the Board does not decide things as much as it facilitates process.